Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-09July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1 ) 111 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 9, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindst~om and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item 4.1. Street Signs for: Whippoorwill Hollow, Carrsbrook and Canterbury Hills. Letter was received from Mr. James H. Hill of Virginia Land Company requesting a replacement street sign for Bobwhite Court in Whippoorwill Hollow and a sign for Gloucester Court in Carrsbrook Subdivision. A letter was received from Mrs. Sally W. McGetrick, a resident of Canterbury Hills Subdivision, requesting a sign. The following resolutions were adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Thrush.Road (State Route 1616) at its intersection with Bobwhite Court (State Route 1617); WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Gloucester Road (State Route 1424) at its intersection with Gloucester Court (State Route 1325); WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Westminster Road (State Route 1404) at its intersection with Barracks Road (State Route 654); and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Item 4.2. Contract: Piedmont Virginia Community College Bus Route. The following memorandum from the County Executive dated July 3, 1986, was received, and authorization to execute the agreement as request was given by the vote shown above: 112 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 2) "The annual agreement that grants Charlottesville contractual authority to operate a bus service to the Community College within the territorial jurisdiction of the County has been forwarded for my signature. The agree- ment allows the City to operate without obtaining a certificate of conve- nience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission. The agreement reads identically to the current agreement, with the addition of an annual automatic renewal clause each year on July 1 unless the City or County gives notice of termination by March 1 preceding each renewal date. As you recall, there are no County funds involved. Authority to execute the agreement is requested." Item 4.3. Letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated June 27, 1986, accepting roads in Fieldbrook Subdivision into State Secondary System, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated May 21, 1986, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 30, 1986. ADDITIONS FIELDBROOK SUBDIVISION Route 652 (Old Brook Road) - From 0.80 mile NE Route 631 to 0.03 mile West Route 1441 LENGTH 0.09 Mi. Route 652 (Westmoreland Road) - From Route 1441 to 0.03 mile West Route 1441 0.03 Mi. Route 1330 (Bixham Lane) - From Route 652 to South cul-de-sac 0.09 Mi. Route 1331 (Redington Lane) - From Route 652 to South cul-de-sac 0.11 Mi." Item 4.4. Letter from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, dated June 27, 19'86, regarding "Experimental Tree Trimming Project", was received as information: "Thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning the tree trimming project. It is apparent that you have the same interests as expressed by the Town of Ashland, Virginia. The Highway and Transportation Board Sign Committee, considering all the correspondence for and against the project, invited persons that represented all such interests at a meeting on April 16, 1986. The following organiza- tions were represented: The Garden Club of Virginia, The Virginia Federa- tion of Garden Clubs, The Council on the Environment, The Virginia Municipal League, as well as: The Outdoor Advertising Association of Virginia, The Virginia Retail Merchants' Association, Mamie Vest and Associates, and Virginians to Outlaw Drunk Driving. Each of these groups' representatives stated their position relative to supporting the pilot project. The Virgin- ia Municipal League adequately represented the cities and towns of the state. Based on this input, the Highway and Transportation Board on May 15, 1986, approved an experimental policy allowing a limited amount of cutting in front of conforming billboards and businesses. The Board felt this was the most reasonable compromise to respond to both industry and those who oppose tree trimming. I am enclosing a copy of the experimental policy that was passed by the Board on May 15 for your information. Again, thank you for taking the time to let me know your feelings on this matter." Item 4.5. Resolution received from City Council re: way, was received as follows: McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Park- WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has presented the City with a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed widening and extension of McIntire Road, State Project Nos. U000-104-102, PE101 and 0631-002-128, C502; and WHEREAS, that draft environmental impact statement includes several alternative alignments for the extension of McIntire Road or "Meadowcreek Parkway"; and After reviewing the proposed alternatives, City Council has concluded that one of them is unacceptable; now therefore be it RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the Council shall advise the Department of Highways and Transportation it deems Alternative Alignment B, proposed in the December 1985 draft environ- mental impact statement for the McIntire Road project to be unacceptable because of the dislocation of existing residences and other disruptive effects it would have in the Park Street neighborhood. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Item 4.6. The County Executive's Financial Report for MaY, 1986, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602, along with the following, memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance: "A review of the County's financial reports for the period of July 1, 1985 through May 31, 1986, reveals that actual revenue in most cases will meet or exceed budget projections and with a few minor exceptions, all expenditures will be within approved appropriations. Current projections show three General Fund departments with possible overexpenditures. All would be for minor amounts and we are monitoring this closely to avoid overexpenditures if possible. The appropriation for refunds will be overexpended by $15,000 to $20,000. This results from under budgeting of Land Use Deferrals in the amount of $41,548.49. Discussions with David Papenfuse show no significant concerns in the School Fund. Projections through June 30, 1986 indicate that the School Fund Balance will be adequate for funding of 1986/87 appropriations as projected in the 1986/87 budget. Three activities listed under Other Funds are currently showing over- expenditures. The 1984/85 TIPS Grant shows an overexpenditure of $589, however revenue from this Grant exceeded projections by $598. Several matters need to be finalized to close out this Grant and a request will be made for an additional appropriation in the near future. The Community Education Program which is a self-sustaining activi- ty shows a current overexpenditure of $50,216. Revenues have exceeded projections by $41,424, a difference of $8,792. I have been assured that June revenues will make up this difference and that the School Board will be requesting an additional appro- priation for this program. The Textbook Rental Fund is currently overexpended by $4,175. The School Board is aware of this and plans to request an additional appropriation to be funded from the School Fund Balance. The Finance Department will continue to monitor the above situations and request corrective action as needed. However, I feel that any corrective action should be deferred until the latter part of July in order to be sure of the final amounts required." Item 4.7. A copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia, Third Quarter, 1985" prepared by the Virginia Employment Commission, was received as information and is on file. Item 4.8. A copy of "Economic Analysis of Travel in Virginia, 1985" as prepared by the State Division of Tourism, was received and is on file. Item 4.9. A copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for its meeting on June 24, 1986, was received as information. Item 4.10. as information. A copy of the Annual Report of the Sheriff dated July 1, 1986, was received Item 4.11. The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated July 2, 1986, entitled "Sheriff's Approved Compensation Board Budget for FY 1986-87" was received as information: "The State Compensation Board did not approve the additional position requested by the Sheriff and only approved $1500 in overtime. The $1500 would have been adequate with the new position. Frequently, the Courts extend beyond 5 p.m., most of the mental patients are transported in the evening hours, and he has to send for prisoners being jailed in other localities around the state. All of these situations create overtime for his deputies. Staff in conjunction with the Sheriff have requested the Compensation Board to increase the overtime allowance from $1500 to $4500. This may be done by the Compensation Board as a 'trade-off' in lieu of the additional deputy.. If approved, all of the overtime costs would be reimbursed by the state. However, the new position, if allowed, would have required additional local costs for a vehicle, radio, uniforms, and health insurance. So the overtime option is considerably less costly. Simultaneously with the amended request above, staff retained the appeal option pursuant to the Code of Virginia. This was done to meet the 30 day limitation from the time of notice. My conversation, as well as the Sher- iff's conversation, with the Compensation Board staff, indicates a good possibility that the appeal will not be necessary. If the appeal option is necessary, two members of the Board of Supervisors will join the three members of the Compensation Board to make a five member Board to consider the Sheriff's request. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Attached is an acknowledgment of the receipt of the staff's notice of appeal. Hopefully, this type of action is not necessary. However, the staff is very supportive of the Sheriff in his request for $4500 in overtime to solve the problem. If approved, the Sheriff's budget will have to be amended to incorporate the additional fundtng." Item 4.12. Letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated June 27, 1986, accepting Georgetown Court into the State Secondary System of Highways, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated July 13, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective June 30, 1986. ADDITION GEORGETOWN COURT SUBDIVISION Route 1335 (Court Place) - From Route 656 to SE cul-de-sac LENGTH 0.12 Mi." Item 4.13. Copy of letter from the State Division of Historic Landmarks, dated June 26, 1986, notifying Mr. Peter William and Mrs. M. Jae A. Sushka that "High Meadows" has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received as information. Item 4.14. Copy of Planning Commission Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Revisions, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 26, October 9, October 16, November 6 (afternoon), November 6 (night), and November 13, 1985. Mr. Bowie said there were some typographical errors on the November 13, 1985, minutes. Also, on Page 5, in the middle of the first paragraph, add the word "contractor" in the ninth sentence between the words "whether" and "A". He also commented on the County Executive's quarterly report on the merit system of last year. He said it was pointed out that 56 percent of the employees would qualify for a merit raise unless an adjustment was made, and that is apparently what happened. Mr. Lindstrom said that there were a couple of typographical errors on October 9, 1985, minutes. Also, at the top of Page Nine add the word "said" to the first sentence so that is will read: "Mr. Lindstrom said he feels .... " Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve minutes from November 13, 1985, Pages 1 - 10, and October 9, 1985, pages 1 - 9. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Road Study: Roads not a part of the Secondary System. The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated July 3, 1986, entitled "County Attorney's Summary on Four County Roads Not in State System" was received as follows: "The attached letter summarizes the circumstance and current estimated costs of getting four existing roads into the State system. It is recommended that if action is taken to proceed with these road problems, that the Board consider the procedure described in the last paragraph on Page 2 for financ- ing, which would share one-half the construction cost between the County and lot owners along each road, provided 75 percent of those owners agree. Although these roads and others have differing circumstances involved in their not being in the State system, that procedure for sharing the costs appears to be equitable and applicable to most road situations, and would seem to address the matter of any precedent being created for other unknown road problems." The following letter from the County Attorney to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, dated June 27, 1986, was also received: "This letter is my report to the Board on feasibility of getting four roads into the State System: North Berkshire, Peyton Drive, Milton Drive, and Dunromin Road. I will discuss these roads separately in that order. I got the information from the Engineering office, Planning office, and the Deed Books in the Clerk's office. 1. North Berkshire: This road is part of Oak Terrace subdivision. The plat of that subdivision was put to record October 19, 1960, having been approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in April, 1960. The developers were Harry D. and Mildred G. Faulconer. The plat is recorded at Deed Book 363, page 99. There is no record of any bond having been posted. Estimated cost of repair is $3,800.00. There is no record as to whether the approval of the plat was conditioned on the road being in the State System. The roads are dedicated to public use, but this does not constitute a condition that they be either constructed to State standards or put into the system. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 2. Peyton Drive: This road is in Westfield subdivision, the plat of which was put to record August 15, 1968. Developer was West Realty Company, by Dr. Charles W. Hurt. The plat is at Deed Book 447, page 258. Dr. Hurt submitted a personal check for the bond, which was not accepted, and there is a letter in the planning office file from him requesting that the bond for Hollymead Phase I be transferred to Peyton Drive, that letter being dated January 17, 1973. The Hollymead Phase I bond was released December 4, 1978. Estimated cost of repair is $32,050.00. There is no record of approval conditions requiring this road be in the State system. Peyton Drive, as opposed to the other three roads does not serve single family residences but serves the Comdial parking lot, and the Jefferson Towne Apartments. 3. Milton Drive: This road is in Milton Heights subdivision, the plat of which was put to record September 19, 1958. Developers were John and Fairy Geiger. Plat is at Deed Book 343, page 64. This subdivision was created before the County had any subdivision, zoning, or other land use controls, or any planning commission or planning office; land was developed totally under the free market system meaning that the owner hired a surveyor to lay off the lots and roads, and simply took the plat to the Clerk's Office for recordation. It was up to the buyer of a lot, and his attorney, to contracturally bind the developer to construct the road to whatever standard they deemed appropriate, and get it into the State system. There- fore, of course, there were no conditions of approval, and no bond. Cost of improvements: $29,400.00. 4. Dunromin Road: This road is in Clearview Meadows subdivision, plat of which was put to record March 19, 1973. Developers were J. Paul Martin and wife and Richard E. Hurlbut and wife. Plat is of record in Deed Book 525, page 231 and notation in the planning and zoning files indicate con- struction of the road was completed according to State standards, and the bond released. However, the road was not put into the system because at that time there were not three houses on it. Since then it has deteriorat- ed. Cost of construction will be $5,555.00. There is no way the County can require the original developer to contribute to the upgrading of these roads nor will the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation contribute to this. If 75 percent of the owners agree in writing, then all of the owners of each road can be assessed to provide a total amount equal to half of the construction costs; the other half would have to be provided by the County treasury. Unless this option is imple- mented, then it will be up to the owners along each road to act individually or as a group, to upgrade the road and get it into the system. We are informed by staff that these four roads are typical of many other similarly situated roads in the County." Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a request from some constituents that this be sched- uled for their ability to participate at an evening meeting. He suggested hearing Mr. Roosevelt's comments, and then scheduling a summary for an evening meeting. He will see that the people who have expressed interest get a copy of the report. He thinks they should understand the details of how this will work. Mr. Bowie stated that Milton Drive is in his district, and he would like to learn more about what the options are and what can be done. Mr. Way agreed that if there are citizens who want to have input, then they should be allowed to do so. Mr. Agnor commented that Mr. St. John had prepared the summary of individual roads and that Mr. Elrod had prepared a report on these roads earlier in the year. The roads were prioritized into three different priorities, and these four roads that Mr. St. John has furnished information on are the four that were in priority number one. Mr. St. John said the report is self-explanatory. The staff was instructed to find alternatives for getting the roads into the system. The staff was not pointed in the direc- tion of vacating the right-of-way and possibly turning these roads into private roads with a homeowners' agreement, but that is one option that is available. He commented that the money has got to come either from the citizens or the County in some proportion among these two sources. He said it is impossible in any of these four cases to go to court and require the developer now to complete these roads and get them into the system. Mr. Fisher said that in any event, this option would leave it to a vote of the property owners, and unless 75 percent agree to the funding method, it is not going to happen anyway. Mr. Way read the last sentence of the report which indicated that these four roads are typical of many other similarly situated roads in the County, and he asked what the implica- tions are. Mr. Fisher commented that an earlier staff report listed some priorities, but these four roads were top priority, even though there are others. Mr. Agnor stated that this is a list of fourteen roads which known to the staff. He said that the report indicates that there could be as many as twenty roads that need assis- tance, but they are unknown. He said that the anticipation is that if action is started on some of these fourteen roads, there may be others that may arise of which the staff is unaware. Mr. St. John said the Board had asked his office staff to see if there is any remedy against the developers because if there is, the longer you wait, the weaker the position you are in when you try to get the developer to do the work. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 6 ) Mr. Lindstrom stated that a new piece of information had come to light through this report relative to Dunromin Road which is in his district. He said that he ~nd the property owners understand that the bond was prematurely released, and as a result the road was never brought into the state system. He felt that this is a problem the County had created. He learned subsequently that the reason the bond was released is because the County can only hold the bond for a certain period of time, and there were not enough houses on the road at that time to get the State Highway Department to accept the road for maintenance. He now feels that the County is not responsible for any error under ~hose circumstances. He said that these people, however, do have a problem and he asked that a time be set when they can be present for a discussion. Mr. Roosevelt said there are no State funds available to get these roads into the system. Since the Subdivision Ordinance allows private roads, the County is not allowed to use the section of the County's Code that was originally cited as a way of getting the roads into the system. It means having to follow the state subdivision requirements to get these roads into the system. He said that the County needs to be aware that this involves the development of plans and the whole preliminary engineering procedure that any new subdivision plan would go through. He brought out the fact that not only would cost of construction be involved, but also the cost of development of plans and the review process. Mr. St. John said that the Engineering Department had taken all of that into considera- tion, and the estimates included that cost. Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to suggest a time to have a night meeting concerning this project, and it was decided that on September 3, 1986, discussion on this matter would continue. Mr. Bowie asked about setting a precedent when there could be more roads needing assis- tance, and Mr. Fisher replied that a precedent had already been set several years ago. Mr. Fisher commented that an unfinished road in a high volume traffic area in the Charlottesville District was treated this way some years ago. He said that another one was done in the Scottsville District. He said it is really hard for the people to come up with 50 percent of the money in most cases. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated June 16, 1986, re: Road Construction Agreement - Mill Creek Subdivision. "Attached is a copy of an agreement governing road construction within Mill Creek Subdivision which was approved as ZMA-85-29 for Forest Hills by the Board of Supervisors. At the time of approval the Board requested that when the staff had finalized the wording of the agreement it should be submitted to the Board for their review and approval. Since the approval of the PUD, the staff of the County Attorney and this Department have been working with Mr. Gilliam and Mr. Craig. This agreement is a product of those discus- sions. I believe the agreement as it currently stands adequately protects the interest of the County and the owners of the PUD." Mr. Horne said that the Board had before it the current version of this agreement. His office and the County Attorney's Office have reviewed the agreement and feel that it ade- quately protect the interests of the County. He pointed out that they have received confir- mation from the Highway Department that there is a mechanism available whereby a county can enter into an agreement with an applicant whose intention it is to construct a roadway at a standard lower than the ultimate design of that roadway. In this situation, however, there would be a binding agreement that the County can enforce to require that if there is addi- tional traffic through this development on the roadway, then the developer is obligated to upgrade what would be a state maintained roadway. He said that is the concept that is talked about in this agreement, although he does not think this agreement is specific enough now about the East/West Collector Road shown in the Comprehensive Plan to tie that down. The County Attorney's Office is looking agreements not only for collector roads, but also for various other roads that would tie that concept into a separate agreement on construction for the Collector Road. He believes another agreement will be ready shortly on that type of roadway. Mr. Lindstrom inquired about Paragraph Two of the agreement, and said there were two ways to interpret it. One is that the construction by the developer of the first section will be to those standards necessary to meet the traffic using that section of road. With another section slated for construction, Mr. Lindstrom reads this as either the developer will build that next section to whatever higher standard will be necessary, or he will build not only that next section, but he will go back and improve the previous section to meet that higher volume. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know if it is the latter interpretation that is the intent. Mr. Horne replied it is intended that the developer will do both. The concept is that the developer will not only build sections, but as traffic is added to various sections, the developer will upgrade to the category needed for additional traffic areas. The additional agreement that Mr. Horne talked about is needed from the Highway Department's point of view to tie the developer specifically to the requirement that the County will enforce on him to upgrade a portion of state maintained roadway. Mr. Lindstrom read aloud part of Paragraph Two and focused on the words, "granted access." He said that "granted access" means to him that they may not travel over a certain section, but they have access to the Collector Road. He stated that when this is added to the volume of traffic that previously existed that then sets the standard for the whole road, including going back to a previously constructed section and upgrading that to the new standard. Mr. Horne said they have spoken of both a section agreement and an upgrading agreement. They will come back with an additional agreement on the upgrading, since that is July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) -' a very specific thing which the Highway Department needs to see in a very specific form, because, potentially, it would be, in effect, a state maintained roadway to be upgraded, instead of a private road. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the County is patient enough and the developer builds the whole PUD, the developer will have constructed the whole length of the Collector Road to the ultimate design standard within the PUD. Mr. Horne replied, "yes," for the traffic generated in that PUD, it will be built to that standard. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that this agreement only talks about the Reynovia Land Trust and not its successors in title. He said it appears that this agreement can be obviat- ed by simple transfer of ownership to a new entity. If that is the case, he feels it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Mr. Lindstrom added that the agreement will be binding upon the successors who sign it. Mr. Fisher stated that if the Board wishes to adopt some such agreement, it needs to be included somewhere. Mr. Way agreed. Mr. Fisher pointed out that under Paragraph Four, the Highway Department may say that it will not take in a new section of road unless it is built to ultimate standards. This would put the County in a position of having to agree to pay the cost of construction of the Collector Road to the ultimate design standards. It would mean the difference between the cost of building the road to the standard needed by the developer and what the Highway Department says are the ultimate needs for that road; that could be a significant amount of money. He does not think the County should enter into this agreement without being fully aware that this may be a situation where no road will get into the State system unless the County agrees to come up with a large sum of money. Mr. Way said it is his understanding that one of the major things in favor of this overall subdivision was the fact that the developer was going to be building this road, because the other end of the road might have to be done at some point at County expense. wants to be sure that it is very clear that the road is to be built at the developer's expense. He thinks this was the consensus when the request was first presented. He Mr. Fisher commented that this agreement will have to be tightly drawn, because there may be multiple owners in the future. He said he can see four or five people wanting to develop with different ideas as to what are their obligations. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the point of a binding agreement on the successors of the trust. Although he supports the concept, he does not want the County to be put in a position where the private road provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance have to be amended or the County fund the entire construction cost to the ultimate design standards. He does not want any County money going into anything but upgrading that road to the category that would be necessary to handle through traffic with the difference between that and the total PUD traffic being paid for by the developer. Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, had sent him a couple of agreements. One agreement involved basically internal roads in the Mill Creek Subdivi- sion. The question that was asked of the Department was if the Department would accept roads built to less than ultimate standards if some mechanism was available to assure that they would be upgraded to ultimate standards without using highway funds. The answer that was sent back was that the Highway Department was willing to do this. They would take roads at less than ultimate standards with the understanding that someone other than the Highway Department would upgrade these roads in the future. He said the agreement on internal roads binds the developer to improve the roads as traffic increases and probably protects the County so that they do not have to put in additional money to upgrade the road. However, the agreement that is being discussed at this meeting does not do that because he believes the ultimate traffic on this through road is going to be considerably greater than the traffic generated by the PUD. In fact, it could be greater to the extent that PUD will only have to build a two lane road and ultimate traffic may require a four lane road. In that case, he sees the County having to come up with half the ultimate cost of that road.~ He wants the Board to understand that all the Highway Department has agreed to is to accept roads built to less than the ultimate standard provided that somebody else pays for upgrading these roads to the ultimate standard at some time in the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if it gets to that point, and the County doesn't want to spend the money? What will the Highway Department do then? Mr. Roosevelt answered by saying that there would be two agreements involved in each of these cases. There would be an agreement between the County and the developer to try to insure that the developer is going to do what has to be done to upgrade the roads. There will be another agreement when the road comes into the system between the County and the State. The County may refer to this other agreement as a way of financing these ultimate improvements or at least part of them. But when the State indicates to the County that this road has to be upgraded, then the County will have to upgrade it. If the County did not live up to the agreement, then this would be a basis for a lawsuit. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if this is an agreement that this Board can enter into? Mr. St. John replied that the County cannot enter into that kind of an agreement, but there is another alternative, if that point is reached. He thinks the Highway Department would take into the State system what is now being called a through Collector Road, built only to serve the PUD's traffic. Sometime in the future the County may decide that it does not have the money to build this Collector Road and the concept will be struck from the Comprehensive Plan. The fact that this roadway in the Comprehensive Plan is the only reason the Highway Department is not going to take it in until it is built to the standards of a through Collector Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the fact that it is shown as a through Collector Road in the Comprehensive Plan would be the basis of the ultimate standard. Mr. St. John commented that someone else, a few years from now, could conceivably strike this road out of the Comprehensive Plan, get the PUD roads taken into the system, and then readopt a Comprehensive Plan to show this road. But the Highway Department has remedies when it runs into those kinds of problems. The alternative is to either build it or pay for the 118 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) difference between the road as a PUD road and a through Collector Road or strike it from the Comprehensive Plan and abandon the idea of having a through Collector Road there. The Board will have to make that decision at the time the road is to be taken into the system. Mr. Horne disagreed. At the point when the road is to be taken into the system, there will be an agreement stating that when and if there is a physical connection that loads the additional traffic, then there is a mechanism to have the roads upgraded. The road would have a cul-de-sac placed at that point, so there would be no additional traffic that would go into the system, based on this agreement. They will not get into the through traffic con- struction until they propose to physically connect the road to additional traffic. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the point at which the Highway Department would say to the County that this road needs to be built to the ultimate standards would be the time when the County goes to the Highway Department and says that it wants a Connector Road through this property to Fifth Street. When that road goes through, the rest of the road that is on the system has to be upgraded to the ultimate standards. Mr. Lindstrom discussed what would happen if the first section of this road serves 30 lots, but as the road goes into the development other sections that have been approved for this phase are picked up. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he thinks the agreement has got to be worded so that before the developer can sell any of the additional lots, he will have to upgrade sections of the road. Mr. Lindstrom responded that the developer would have to upgrade the sections of the road to whatever standards the Highway Department is requiring, not to whatever standard may be applicable to the number of lots that they have actually built. Mr. Horne referenced a letter that the Highway Department has sent the County that seems to be agreeing the lower standard could be built. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is that Highway Department policies can change from what they are agreeing to at this point unless there is a binding agreement. Mr. Roosevelt suggested the solution would be that at the time the County approves these roads to be built, an agreement should be entered into between the Highway Department and the County. Mr. Lindstrom said as long as the County is not bound to do something under the agreement now that the Highway Department might not agree to do at the first step. Mr. Roosevelt stated that if it was a binding agreement, the Highway Department could not back out of it. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the agreements need to be simul- taneous so that the County does not agree with the developer to do one thing assuming that an agreement will be made with the Highway Department, and then six months later when the agreement is actually made with the Highway Department, it is different. Mr. Horne said the first subdivision plat has been filed and is awaiting approval. It does not affect the Collector Road, but it does affect the internal roadways which are protected from the Highway Department's point of view with the agreement between Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek which says if Lake Reynovia loads traffic on certain roads, then it will be responsible for upgrading those state maintained roads. In order to proceed to the point of signing the plat, the County will have to have an agreement on those internal roadways. He has contacted the County Attorney's Office, and they are hoping to develop an agreement. There are four or five other roadway situations like this, and they are hoping to come up with a concept. He asked Mr. St. John if an agreement could be ready within 30 days. Mr. St. John responded that he thinks they can have it much sooner than that. Mr. Horne suggested that this first plat act as the impetus to get this issue with the Highway Department settled. He said if the Board is uncomfortable with this concept, the plat can be held until something can be developed. Mr. Lindstrom stated that what Mr. Fisher suggested about making this agreement binding upon successors in interest should be done. Secondly, he thinks that an agreement between the County and the Highway Department should be reached at the same time the agreement is signed with the developer. Mr. Horne said the agreements between Reynovia and Mill Creek have been sent to the Highway Department. He assumes they have been reviewed, due to the fact that a letter was sent back suggesting some minor alterations. Mr. Roosevelt commented that what has been reviewed are not agreements that involve the Highway Department. They are between the County and the developer or between two developers. All the Highway Department was asked to comment on was the concept for building these roads in phases. They were asked if the Highway Department would accept the roads this way, and the response was that it would. There still has to be a second agreement between the County and the State. Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel uneasy about the County signing any agree- ment before the agreement is signed with the State. Mr. St. John said he thinks the State Attorney General, who acts as attorney for the Highway Department, would have to see any such agreement. It would be a policy decision at a higher level in the Attorney General's Office as to whether the Highway Department would want to enter into these agreements. Mr. Roosevelt replied that it had been indicated to him that the Department is willing to do this on a case-by-case basis. They will not enter into an agreement with Albemarle County to cover every future road that falls in this case. Each ~ase will have to have an agreement submitted. Mr. Fisher stated that Albemarle County is probably not the first jurisdiction in the state that has been faced with this situation. He imagines that somebody has already run into this problem and has tried to solve it. He suggested calling other planners and attor- neys and find out what they are doing. Mr. St. John replied that the starting point for this is the through road on the Compre- Rensive Plan. The developer cannot be made to contribute any right-of-way, construction funds or anything else beyond the standard of road to serve his PUD. That is the whole point pf this agreement. The fact is that every problem cannot be predicted that might arise in the future. He does not believe an agreement could be reached with that kind of assurance. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Fisher suggested that the agreement be amended to include "successors in title to the trust," and that consideration be given to an agreement with the Highway Department. Will they become a third party to this agreement, or will there be a separate agreement? He asked the County Attorney's Office to explore how to handle that and to initiate review by the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to have the agreement amended to include "successors in title to the trust" and to have the County Attorney explore and initiate review of a third party or separate agreement with the Highway Department. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Report of Eastern Bypass Committee. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Bowie had asked that this item be placed on the agenda today for discussion. The report of the Committee follows: "In April, 1986, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Council of the City of Charlottesville appointed an eight-member committee composed of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two members of City COuncil, one member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, one member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, a Deputy County Execu- tive, and the Deputy City Manager. The charge to the committee was to develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council for the location of a route for a by-pass on the east side of the City of Charlottesville agreeable to the City and County which would provide a viable alternative to traffic travelling through the Charlottesville/ Albemarle area on U. S. Route 29. This study was undertaken in response to statements by members of the transportation planning staff of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and a member of the Governor's Commission on Transportation in the 21st Century. These statements were to the effect that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area should plan for a sub- stantial increase in the amount of through traffic in the U. $. Route 29 corridor. Beginning with the committee's initial meeting in late April, various by-pass alignments were considered. A total of nine different routes were reviewed. In addition, several alternate alignments were considered for at least one of the proposed routes. During the past two and one-half months the committee has undertaken the following actions: Met eight times to develop its recommendations to the City Council and Board of Supervisors; 2. Undertaken airplane flights over the possible routes; 3. Reviewed alignments proposed by both the City and County staff; Reviewed alignments which have been studied in the past by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitian Planning Organization; Met in Richmond with the Secretary of Transportation, Vivian Watts, and Highway Commissioner, Ray Pethtel; Met in Richmond with Transportation Planner, Richard Lockwood, and his staff; and Met with the local Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. As a result of its efforts, the committee concludes that there is no present, nor perceived future, justification for the construction of a by-pass around the City of Charlottesville, either east or west, based upon present or projected through traffic. Furthermore, the committee does not consider a by-pass to be feasible due to the limitations of topography, the threat to parklands, environmental hazards, including hazards to public drinking water impoundments and sensitive flood plain areas. One of the most promising alignments was ruled out when the committee was informed by representatives of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that it would be virtually impossible to utilize federal highway funds to construct any road which impacted public parkland or sensitive environmental areas such as flood plains. The committee believes that both current and projected future traffic volumes in the'Charlottesville/Albemarle area can be adequately accommodated through the construction of the following projects: construction as currently proposed of additional north-south lanes to U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville; construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway between McIntire Road and Rio Road as a limited access highway; July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 10) replacement of Free Bridge over the Rivanna River and the four- laning of U. S. 250 East from Locust Avenue in the City of Charlottesville to its intersection with Interstate 64 in the County of Albemarle; construction of grade-separated interchanges on U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville at both Rio Road and Hydrau- lic Road; construction of Rio Road to four lanes from the proposed inter- section with Meadow Creek Parkway west to U. S. 29 north of the City of Charlottesville; construction of an interchange at the intersection of Route 742 (Avon Street) and Interstate 64 in the County of Albemarle; construction of a limited collector road from the intersection of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and Rio Road to U. S. 29 North of Route 649 (Airport Road) in the County of Albemarle; construction of an interchange on the U. S. 250 By-Pass to serve the north grounds of the University of Virginia; The committee recommends the continued vigorous and joint support and advo- cacy of the foregoing projects by the City and County in order to achieve their earliest construction. The committee believes that the construction of these projects will accommo- date both local and statewide transportation demand for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, it appears to the Committee that the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation is under considerable political pressure to undertake construction of a by-pass around the Charlottesville area at some time in the future. The purpose of such a road would be to accommodate alleged anticipated increases in U. S. Route 29 non-local through traffic resulting from increased economic development in the Lynchburg and Danville areas of the State, and the completion of other major improvements in the U. S. Route 29 corridor which will, it is argued, attract more traffic from existing crowded north-south routes through the State. Because the committee does not believe that there exists a prudent and feas- ible alignment, either east or west of Charlottesville for the construction of such a by-pass, the Committee recommends that any consideration of further transportation improvements beyond those listed above designed to meet non-local through traffic needs be restricted to construction of an elevated limited access roadway over the existing right-of-way of U. S. 29 North of the City of Charlottesville. The committee recognizes that an elevated roadway would be both innovative and costly. However, considering the cost of right-of-way acquisition, grading for and construction of any of the other alignments reviewed by the committee (which the committee believes encompass all of the possible alignments which exist), together with the very real costs of the signifi- cant environmental and neighborhood damage which would result from construc- tion of a by-pass along any of the other alignments studied, the elevated roadway concept is, in the opinion of the committee, the least costly alternative. An elevated roadway constructed over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville would be able to utilize existing right-of-way, thereby avoiding the rapidly accelerating cost of land acquisition, which cost would inevitably be a significant and increasing portion of the costs attendant to the construction of a road along any of the other alignments considered. The impact of construction and the visual and environmental impact of an elevated roadway would be confined to an existing transporta- tion corridor, the character of which is already dominated by an existing major highway and highway-oriented commercial development. Although disrup- tion to existing commercial development and to transportation in the U. S. Route 29 corridor from construction of an elevated roadway would be signifi- cant, it would be primarily temporary. Damage to existing commercial development would be compensable. On the other hand, construction of a new by-pass, while resulting in relatively little disruption to the existing 29 corridor, would have a permanent and largely uncompensated impact upon the territory through which it was constructed. The committee believes this impact to be unacceptable. In summary, the committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors and City Council oppose the construction of an eastern by-pass and continue their opposition to the construction of a western by-pass. The committee further recommends that the road improvements listed above continue to be supported by the City and County and advocated to the State as the solution for existing and anticipated transportation demands in the area. Finally, should the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determine that additional improvements to the local transportation network are required to accommodate additional non-local through traffic, the committee recommends that the City and County advocate the construction of an elevated roadway over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 11) 121 This report and the recommendations contained herein represent the unanimous opinion of the committee." (Signed) David P. Bowerman Frederick R. Bowie Elizabeth H. Gleason Mary Alice Gunter C. Timothy Lindstrom Gary B. O'Connell Donald E. Sours Robert W. Tucker, Jr." Mr. Bowie said he asked have this put on the Agenda because the report has been made public and the Board has taken no official action on the report, and he thinks it should. He mentioned that not only had the Committee had eight meetings, they also made two trips to Richmond and met with the Secretary of Transportation, the Commissioner of the Department of Highways and Transportation and also with planners in that same department and with the local planning staff and representatives from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0). He said that every solution was studied, and they had even flown over the possible routes. The Committee concluded that there is no logical justification for the construction of a bypass, and that both east and west bypasses be opposed because of the impact on the drinking water watershed. The Committee recommends that improvements already in Highway plans would expe- dite traffic, and if they did not, after the year 2000, this bypass should be an elevated roadway built within existing State right-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom added that the Committee did not see that a bypass was necessary to handle traffic given all the information from the State planning people and local statistics and projections, if the other projects on the list are built. The only reason that the Committee could conceive that a bypass would actually be required was as a response to political pressures that apparently being brought on the Highway Department to build a road to serve the perceived needs by other southern communities. The Committee did not want to advocate a bypass because they did not think it was necessary. But, if the Highway Department decided to build this bypass, the Committee would support alignment along the existing Route 29 corridor with an elevated roadway. This has been done in other parts of the country. Almost all of the right-of-way that would be needed is already there, and the inflationary costs would be in construction. As the right-of-way costs go up, the benefit to this particular road, financially, would increase. It is also the only route that did not affect existing neighborhoods or have an adverse environmental impact. Mr. Bowie stated that there is no logical route that does not impact on parks, residen- tial areas, school zones, rivers, flood plains and watersheds. He said that everybody on up to the Secretary of Transportation agrees that there are no traffic projections to justify the bypass. There is only southern political pressure, and he feels it is important to get this on record. If, after everything else has been done there is still a problem, then the Highway Department should proceed with an elevated roadway. He made a motion for the Board to accept the report from the Committee on the Eastern Bypass. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mrs. Cooke commented that if the ultimate proposals for the Route 29 North corridor ever a become a reality or if this Board intends to support that, she hopes that they will look at other places. She feels that it would be a nightmare for something like this to occur in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom responded that the costs and impacts of the options have to be evaluated. There is a commercial character already established along the road. The impact on neighbor- hoods in certain districts has to be taken into consideration as well as the severe environ- mental impact. He said there are no routes that are desirable, and it is a question of finding the lesser of evils. Mr. Fisher said his reaction is this Committee has reported back that it is unable to find an eastern bypass. It seems to him to be a reasonable response for the County to adopt a position that it does not at this time support either an eastern or western bypass based on the traffic projections that the Board has seen. But to recommend an elevated roadway is something he is not ready to do. He is not sure that is a reasonable recommendation, because he has no idea what the costs are or how it will be implemented. He mentioned that some of the elevated roadways in some cities are ugly. He wonders if there is something else that someone has in mind that would not be a blight upon the landscape. Mr. Bowie commented that if the Board takes the position that there are three routes and all three routes are rejected, and political pressures become great, then they will have done nothing. If there is going to be a route, there has to be one solution that will have a reasonable chance for support. Then if a bypass is built, at least there is something that the County has studied that can solve the problem. If the Board says there is no solution, then the Department of Highways may say they have a solution and the bypass will be built. He does not think either the Board or the County will have much input when the decision is made unless something is done now. Mr. Lindstrom said from an engineering standpoint, the elevated highway can be built. From a financial standpoint, the cost of an elevated roadway is within the same cost of the Piedmont Corridor. He understands the uneasiness of Board members about a project that is so different. But he thinks it is imperative that the City and County find a project they can jointly support. This is a project the Committee jointly supported that clearly addresses the through transportation problem, and it could be done. He mentioned that every bypass incurs financial costs, aesthetic concerns, environmental and neighborhood concerns in significant measure. The only one that doesn't is the elevated roadway within the existing Route 29 North corridor. It incurs the aesthetic and financial costs, but it doesn't have the same neighborhood destruction or the environmental impact. These were factors that went July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) into the Committee's consideration. Mr. Lindstrom went on to say that he is dubious that the City and County are likely to get together again until they are faced with a project. they want to be effective, they must get things in order before the Highway Department announces its Plans. (NOTE: Mr. Way left the meeting at 10:12 A. M.) Mr. Fisher said that basically what the Board needs to do is to notify the Highway Department officially that this is their position. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to have the City and County to support a common approach to the problem. If Mr. Lindstrom replied that it is the Committee's recommendation that these other projects be built, and if they are built, then the elevated roadway is not needed. The Committee did not support the elevated roadway ahead of projects, but only if the Highway Department decides that that kind of road will be built. Mr. Bowie confirmed that the report does not support the concept of an elevated roadway. The report states neither the bypass nor the elevated roadway are needed. There will be impacts with anything that is done, but the elevated roadway is the only one that does not have all four objectionable parts. Mr. Lindstrom commented that what is on record with the Highway Department~and would be pursued are the other projects which are already part of the Highway Department's plans and which will take care of the problem. If it comes to this at some time in the future, and the City and County have an agreed upon set of projects which solve the problem on paper, then he feels they are in a much stronger position to oppose the Highway Department's construction of the elevated roadway or bypass until the other positions have been explored. If there is not a commonly supported position with the City, then he feels that the County will not have any leverage with the Highway Department. Mr. Henley stated that the last paragraph of the report says that the elevated roadway will be supported. He does not want to agree to that because he does not know what it will cost. But he would agree to something saying that the Board would like the Highway Depart- ment to do the other five things and then see what happens, before an agreement is reached on what else needs to be done. Mrs. Cooke said she does not think the Board should agree to anything except for those things they know are necessary to address the local problem. Mr. Lindstrom again explained the position of the Committee by saying that if the Highway Department determines that a bypass must be built for through traffic, and if that construction is opposed and they still insist on building a road just for through traffic, then the position the County should take is if they are going to do it anyway, then an elevated roadway will be accepted. He feels the Board is making a big mistake if they don't have an option that can be worked on with the City. He said the reason the Committee went to Richmond twice was because all the information the Committee had told them a bypass is not needed. Their perception changed radically when they met with Mr. Richard Lockwood's staff. His staff told them that there would be a bypass built, and the Highway Department would be pressured to build it. It would not be their desire, but the General Assembly would tell them to build the road. The Highway Department will build it anywhere the County tells them to build it, unless it is not in an appeasable location, and the Department did not think anything to the east of the City would be an appeasable location. He said the message was clear that the Highway Department was bent on building a bypass. Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion because he thinks the Committee has worked harder and faster than any other joint Committee and has tried hard to come up with a solution that both the City and County could accept. Secondly, he thinks it is important that the City and County have a combined, joint position with the proviso that the elevated highway is only their suggestion for what happens if the Highway Department says something more has to be done beyond the improvements that are already in the planning stages. Mr. Lindstrom read from the report the Committee's recommendations and commented that he did not know how else it could be said that the other projects will do the job and only if confronted with political problems, would the elevated highway be supported. Mr. Bowie said he feels that if the Highway Department should try to build an elevated roadway or bypass two years from now, and the other projects had not been done, he thinks there is some basis to fight it, as opposed to fighting each road that comes along. He thinks the Board will have a legal position that everything has not been done to solve the problem. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if the County does have a legal position? Mr. St. John replied that he did not know, but he thinks it is purely a political question. Mr. Lindstrom said all information that is coming from the Highway Department says that a western bypass will be built. If the Highway Department gets to that point, if the City and County jointly support an alternative, and if County citizens and County government make a battle about it, then he thinks they have created some leverage with the Highway Department that may cause them to consider an alternative. If there is no agreed upon solution to suggest to them, then he does not think their minds will be changed. Mr. Henley said it bothers him to advocate something that he does not know anything about. He does not know what it will cost or what it will do to the County in the future. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this matter be deferred until Board members have a chance to study sketches and plans that the Highway Department has prepared with projected costs, etc. Mrs. Cooke inquired if the County has any assurances that the Highway Department will do these other improvements that the County deems necessary before the construction of the elevated highway. Suppose this is done, and then political pressure from the south takes over before these other things happen? July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 123 Mrs. Cooke asked if these plans are forthcoming in the foreseeable future, and Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee already has them, including information on the elevated highway. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley agreed that the sketches and plans needed to be seen. Mr. Lindstrom explained that these plans were not prepared for the Committee, but were produced for the MP0 about a year and a half ago. Mr. Henley explained that he was not being critical of the state, but it bothers him to advocate something on which he has not seen any information. Mr. Fisher said August 13 would be good time for the staff to present these plans to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not be at the meeting and he would like to be able to participate. Mr. Fisher said the vote may be deferred if it becomes a divided question. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to defer to August 13, 1986 in order to receive sketches, plans and costs for an elevated highway. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. (Voted no because he will not be present at that meeting. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bowie said that the report on Agenda Item No. 6a said that 75 percent of the home- owners agree to pay their share. What happens to the other 25 percent? Mr. St. John re- sponded that the County can assess those property owners against their will providing there are 75 percent in favor. (Note: At 10:28 A.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:37 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: JAUNT Fare Structure. Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Becky Graves has requested an opportunity to make a statement about the JAUNT fare structure. He said a report was hand-delivered to the Board members yester- day, so some of members have had a chance to look at it. Mrs. Graves summarized the report and said the main area they are concerned about is the urban ring around the City. If JAUNT accepts this new fare structure, the fare will be a dollar in the urban ring which is much less than a taxi cab rate. She said that taxi cabs provide over 40,000 trips a year in Albemarle County. JAUNT only provides 20,000. The Charlottesville Taxicab Association feels that it needs protection in the urban ring. She also said that the issue of a shuttle bus to Blue Ridge Hospital has not been resolved as yet. She said the Taxicab Association has never been approached about where they furnish transportation service in the County. She said it had been brought up in a JAUNT Board Meeting that maybe they should check with UMTA to see if this was a new or restructured route and if it followed the federal guidelines. UMTA responded that they would not check anything out, but would take it to the arbitration panel again. She requested that it not be taken to arbitration again, and asked the Board if they can have someone study this to see if it is in accordance with federal guidelines. Mr. Fisher said he was sorry that Mr. Way was not there because he is the Board's representative on the JAUNT Board. He thinks Board members will have to ask for Mr. Way's advice as to how to respond to Mrs. Graves' request. He does not think that the Board, as a whole, really knows what all of the issues are, yet. Mr. Bowie said he had not had time to digest all of the information, but he knew the MP0 had been involved. Mrs. Graves responded that the MPO had decided not to comment. She said she would make this presentation to them in the hope that they will look into it before they end up in arbitration again. She does not think that is the way to go. She said since the County does fund JAUNT, she thinks it would be disastrous if all of a sudden it had 40,000 extra people to pick up. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the position of the MPO is limited to the controversy about the Blue Ridge shuttle bus. Its position was that the arbitration panel which had been requested by the Taxicab Association had been selected according to the outlines that the Association had presented. MPO did not want to second guess the panel, and because it was a sponsor of JAUNT, MPO did not feel it could be as fair and objective as the Arbitration Panel. This panel was selected partly by the Taxicab Association and partly by JAUNT with a third member selected by both parties. The MPO does not want to be the arbitration panel. Mr. Bowie said he will make a philosophical statement. He has a lot of trouble provid- ing tax dollars to an organization so they can compete with private enterprise. He has not read the full report and would like to have the input from the members that are serving on the JAUNT Board and also the MPO Committee. Mrs. Graves said that the JAUNT Board is going to implement the new fare structure on July 1. Mr. Way had made a recommendation that nothing be done until the Board had time to look into it. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Bowie's philosophy, but said she had not had time to read the information. Mr. Lindstrom said it is a complicated subject. He agrees with what has been said about competition, but on the other hand, he does have a concern about protecting JAUNT. JAUNT provides service to a number of people who can't afford the taxicab service. He does not want to jeopardize JAUNT's ability to provide that service. He thinks it is essential to the July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 14) economic viability of a lot of poor people. He understands that JAUNT's purpose is being expanded. He thinks they have to expand because their original source of money has been cut back. It is difficult to sort out all of the new things that are being done with the public interest things, and he does not see where the funds are going to come from without massive local subsidy. He would rather not see that, but he said it is a complicated issue. Mr. Fisher commented that he echoes some of the concerns, but JAUNT is providing some service that the Taxicab Association cannot provide in the rural areas. He said it is stuck with trying to serve the areas that have the least production of revenues per mile traveled, and it is in a difficult situation unless it is able to provide some transportation along the way to those routes. He thinks the Board will have to put this on a future agenda to have time to talk about it and get input from various points of view. Mrs. Graves said she would be available to provide any information that may be needed. Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Piedmont Environmental Council to consider scenic river designation for the Mechum and Rivanna Rivers. Letter from Ms. Kat Imhoff, dated June 16, 1986, brought this matter before the Board. Ms. Imhoff spoke on behalf of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Scenic River Committee of the Piedmont Environmental Council. She said are trying to give the Board enough information on the Scenic River Program so that some time this summer the Board may consider adopting a resolution supporting Virginia Scenic River designation. They would also like to request the Board to begin consideration of County designation for the Mechum and Rivanna Rivers. Ms. Imhoff described how the Scenic River Program was started, and said it is official recogni- tion by the Virginia State Legislature of the scenic, recreational and other values of a river system. She said the key to the entire program is its total reliance on the local level, and explained that it is completely a "grass roots" effort. She stated that the closest scenic river to Albemarle is the Rivanna River in Fluvanna County. They are seeking an addition of about 62 miles, 22 miles of the Rivanna, 18 miles of the Moormans and 22 miles of the Mechum Rivers. The Moormans is already a County designated scenic river. In the Comprehensive Plan, the Mechum and Rivanna are shown as potential scenic rivers. The Commit- tee feels the Moormans and Mechum Rivers are particularly important because they both serve the South Fork Rivanna watershed area. The Rivanna River is important for its historical significance but also because it would link these two rivers to an existing scenic river. Ms. Imhoff explained the process for recognizing scenic rivers, and said that a part of the process requires a resolution of support from the local government. They feel that people at the state level are dragging their feet, so by coming before the Board at this point the Piedmont Environment Council are trying to show significant public support for this designa- tion process. They are hoping to get everything to the General Assembly by this coming spring. The Committee thinks these rivers deserve the State designation. Mr. Fisher asked if the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir has been included in what has been proposed. Ms. Imhoff replied that during the evaluation process they will consider including it. To date, no reservoirs have been included, but in this case, because it is a complete system and because it is a drinking water reservoir, they may consider it. Mr. Fisher asked what the citizen and landowner reaction has been. Ms. Imhoff responded that it has been a very positive reaction from most people. She mentioned that people were concerned mostly about the recreational use, especially from people on the Moormans River. When they explained.the state program, most people said they wanted land use control. They thought the state program was a nice thing to have but what was more important in their estimation was the County's designation. They had about 50 people show up at a public meeting, and Ms. Imhoff has received about 50 telephone calls. She has not had any negative response, but most of the questions that were asked were whether people would be walking across their property, etc. Mr. Henley said that he will never vote for another scenic river because he has gotten a lot of complaints from the people in his district about the Moormans River. Mr. Bowie commented that as far as the part of the Rivanna River that goes through his district, he has talked to individuals and groups, and they have had no objections. He has heard general support for the designation. He asked the question of whether this will increase accessibility to the river, does it increase the traffic, and will more people want to use the river because it is now scenic? Ms. Imhoff said that a study had been done, and they had found no increase in recrea- tional use. The state does not print on any maps that these are scenic rivers. The only way that you can find out where the scenic rivers are is through a pamphlet. That was deliber- ately done because of people's fears that they could be found on a state highway map. Mr. Fisher said the Board would expect to hear more from the Piedmont Environmental Council committee that is working on this matter. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal of Administrative Approval of Subdivision Plat: Lot 8, Pheasant Lane, Milkey Tract. The following letter dated June 26, 1986, from William A. Edgerton, brought this matter before the Board: "As an adjacent property owner, I wish to appeal the 'administrative approval' for a subdivision that was granted to a Mr. Larry Wood on Lot ~8, Pheasant Lane on March 12, 1986. Since this was handled administratively, I had no way of knowing that it had been granted until a bulldozer arrived at the site last week and started clearing the same. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 125 On checking withMr. Bobby Shaw at the County.Engineer's Office, I deter- mined that no soil erosion plan had. been~submitted, no bond posted, nor a permit issued, and only after appealing to Mr. Guy Agnor did Mr. Shaw agree to enforce the Soil Erosion Ordinance since more than 10,~000 square feet of grading had already occurred. In my conversations with Mr. Agnor, I asked him to verify the statement that Bobby Shaw had made concerning the fact that this property had been subdi- vided into two separate lots. I have just been informed by Mr. Agnor that the approval was granted admin- istratively as a 'family subdivision' exempting it from all provisions of the subdivision ordinance except Health Department approval for septic sites and Highway Department approval for access to a state road. I am surprised to learn that this could be done for two reasons. I was assured by the County staff 5 1/2 years ago that as an adjacent property owner, I would definitely be notified of any future attempts to subdivide the property, and the subdivision plat that was approved on January 14, 1981, specifically noted: 'No further subdivision shall be made on this property unless approved by the Albemarle Planning Commission'. I am also surprised that the Health Department was able to verify that there are (4) four adequate septic sites as required on this six acre parcel for two residences, because in 1980 the former owner, even with the assistance of a soil scientist, was unable to locate the required (4) four septic sites and was denied the right to divide this parcel into two lots. Because of this denial, the parcel was shown as a single six acre lot on the subdi- vision plat that was finally approved by the Board of Supervisors on Janu- ary 14, 1981. I know you and most of the Supervisors are aware of how deeply concerned I have been over the development of this land, and hope that something can be done to reverse this approval that, in my opinion, should not have been granted in the first place. I hope it is not too late to have this added to the agenda for the July 9, 1986, Board of Supervisors meeting. I look forward to your response." The following memorandum from the County Executive dated July 7, 1986, entitled "Appeal of William A. Edgerton, re: Redivision of Lot 8, Pheasant Lane, Milkey Tract, Item 9, on Agenda of July 9, 1986, was presented in lieu of a planning staff report: "To assist you in considering this appeal, some background information may be needed. This lot was one of 13 lots, known as the Milkey Tract, approved for subdivision by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1980. Mr. Edgerton appealed the Planning Commission's decision based upon his concern that Lot 8 was unbuildable in its present form, that intermittent streams existed that had not been taken into consideration, that there was con- flicting information regarding parcels, soil studies, streams and topo- graphy, as well as a threat to public health and safety with regard to the neighborhood water supply and the reservoir. After lengthy discussion, the Board approved the subdivision with the Planning Commission conditions, adding a condition (1.h) that the County Engineer review the Lot 8 area and determine if the lot is buildable as platted, or if it should be combined into an adjacent lot. The County Engineer completed a field survey using a grid system on Febru- ary 5, 1981, and advised the Planning Department that there was sufficient area on Lot 8 for a house site and two septic fields outside of 25 percent slope areas. On March 16, 1981, the subdivision plat was signed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Board's Designated Agent. A note on the plat stated 'no further subdivision shall be made on this property unless approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission.' On February 18, 1986, an attorney for the present owner of Lot 8, James L. Wood, applied for a family division of the lot, which is exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance including the note on the plat requiring Planning Commission approval of further subdivision. Family divisions do require Health Department and Highway Department approval, which was obtained. The plat for redividing Lot 8 was approved March 12, 1986, by the Board's Agent. The Health Department approval is a form memorandum which indicates the property appears to be suitable for subsurface drainfields, based on soil s~udies, to accommodate an average size building with an alternate drain- f~ieid. It advises the applicant that if the property is in the runoff control area, that ordinance will apply, and that each lot will be evaluated on its own merit with possible further tests when a septic tank is applied for. As Mr. Edgerton's letter indicates, he contacted me concerning heavy equip- ment clearing the site. Upon inquiry, I learned that an inspection had been made from an earlier call by Mr. Edgerton, where it was determined that July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 16) undergrowth was being removed by dozer and that a canopy of tree cover existed which would protect the soil from rainfall impact and resulting erosion. Additionally a vegetative strip, adjacent to the stream, existed which would serve .sufficiently as a filter area for runoff problems. The field inspector reported his findings to the County Engineer recommending that the property owner be requested to voluntarily take preventive soil erosion measures outlined by the inspector. The County Engineer ruled that a soil erosion control plan and permit would be required due to the location of the property in the watershed. The inspection and the Engineer's deci- sion was made prior to my inquiry into the matter. As I understand Mr. Edgerton's letter and my discussions with him, he appeals as an adjoining landowner the administrative approval of the divi- sion of Lot 8 on a basis similar to his earlier appeal, i.e., his concern for the protection of the reservoir, and the ability to locate four adequate septic sites on the six-acre parcel. Additionally, he requests reversal of the administrative approval upon which the division was granted. I explained that the runoff control ordinance will protect the reservoir, that existing ordinances restricting construction on 25 percent or greater slopes apply in addition to runoff control regulations, and that building permits will notbe issued if two septic sites per lot cannot be located. If this background information raises questions, please advise." Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing William Mr. Edgerton, who is the property owner adja- cent to the Milkey Tract, said that for several weeks Mr. Edgerton heard the sound of a bulldozer across from his front yard at work on another property. He did some investigation to find out if a soil erosion permit had been obtained and found that it had not. After some discussions with the County officers in charge he learned that Lot 8 had been redivided administratively. He said that five and one-half years ago the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approved this subdivision and this lot was one single, large lot. There was a notation put on the plat that there shall be no further subdivision of this lot without approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. He said that now through admini- strative approval under the family exemption provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, someone has sought and obtained approval of a plat administratively. Mr. Gouldman said that five years ago the issue before the Board and Planning Commission was whether that lot was too steep to put a house on. Requirements that govern that sort of thing are in the Zoning Ordinance. He said a lot of studies were done at that time, and it was finally determined by the County that Lot 8 was large enough, despite its steepness, to put one house and two septic fields. Now it seems the Subdivision Ordinance has been circum- vented. The basic reason for not having two homes there is still that it is too steep. He urged that the Board review its own procedures to see what's wrong with the way they are being administered. It seems to him that aside from the fact that it is discriminatory and favors people from large families, it has a provision that says that a year after deeding the property to a family member, it can be deeded to anybody by that family member. He and Mr. Edgerton are respectfully requesting that this Board either rescind or suspend the admini- strative approval of the creation of two lots out of one, that was approved March 26, 1986, until the facts are straight. They are worried that the lots may be changed substantially before it comes to the Board's attention. He stated that somehow the family exemption wiped out the note that was on the plat. He argued that it should not have done this, because the reason for putting the note on there was the Zoning Ordinance. That is where the slope requirements are found, and they are not wiped out by the family exemption. For the record, Mr. Gouldman handed in a letter dated January 20, 1981, from William D. Rieley addressed to William Edgerton, concerning some studies that were done on the topo- graphy. He also submitted the following plats: Plat of Lot 1 to Lot 17, being Parcel 32 on Sheet 44, County Tax Map, dated September 15, 1980, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates; Plat with same description dated October 21, 1980; Plat with same description dated Octo- ber 27, 1980; Plat with same description dated November 24, 1980; showing how the lots in question evolved. His third submission was a memorandum from J. Ashley Williams to Mason Caperton dated February 5, 1981, stating the County finding that the lot was suitable for one house and two septic fields. Next he had some overlays that were prepared by Mr. Edgerton that showed what the buildable areas are on this lot and what the slope is and the septic lines. Mr. Gouldman's last submission was a memorandum from the State Health Department dated March 5, 1986, to the Albemarle County Planning Department. He fears that somewhere along the line someone will say that this is a Health Department problem. The Health Department has said in its letter that the size of the lot and the type of soil there will probably percolate and will probably pass their requirements. But he read the last sentence of the Health Department's letter and said he believes that they have not been out there and checked the slopes, and they are not administering the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked under what authority Mr. Gouldman thinks that the Board has the power to suspend the administrative approval. Mr. Gouldman said he had looked at that and what worries him is the section on appeal of the administrative decision that says anybody can appeal within ten days of the decision. He said his client did not know of the decision until he saw the bulldozers out there and then stumbled upon the decision by investigating that. He Said the ten days are over, and he does not know how to get around that unless it is in Section 18.4. He read this section to the Board. He wondered if the plat has been recorded. He does not think that the staff knows. He said that the procedures are frightening because there is not one certification in the file that family members are going to be involved. There is only a copy of a deed not certified as the one that is going to be recorded that is from a man to his wife. This particular provision can almost emasculate the Subdivision Ordinance. He said the second 12 ? July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) part of Section 18.4 may give the Board authority to suspend the administrative approval or maybe the County Attorney has got other ideas. He and his client came as soon as they found out about it. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Edgerton called him the day he found out about the prob- lem, and it was set on the agenda for this meeting. He thought that would be the first time that the Board could at least hear the concerns. He thinks that there has been due diligence to respond as soon as Mr. Edgerton found out what had happened. He said that apparently there was no notification by the County that the division was or had taken place. There was nothing posted on the property that anybody is aware of. Mr. Fisher said that he felt that this is a big loophole in ordinance requirements. Mr. Bowie asked if the family division is between spouses? Mr. Gouldman responded that the file would indicate that, but there is only a deed in the file, and he does not know if it has been recorded. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he is familiar with this area, and there is a tremendous temptation for people to do something like this because the land values are so incredible, and they have inflated so rapidly. He is concerned about the statement in Mr. Edgerton's letter that he spoke with a member of the County staff about the issuance of the soil erosion plan, and he had to speak with Mr. Agnor before the staff member would agree to enforce the ordinance. He asked Mr. Agnor to elaborate on that. Mr. Agnor explained that when he learned that the site was being cleared, he inquired about it. He learned during an earlier call from Mr. Edgerton that an inspection had been made. The inspector reported back to his supervisor in the County Engineer's Office that a canopy of tree cover existed as well as a vegetative strip adjacent to the stream so his recommendation was that the owner be required to voluntarily take preventive soil erosion measures outlined by the inspector. Mr. Armm did not agree with that and ruled that a soil erosion control plan and permit would be required due to the fact that the property is in the watezshed. This transaction had already taken place by the time he had made his call. It was not a result of his call that the decision was made, but it was a result of the procedure of making a field inspection and having a decision made by the County Engineer. Mr. Edgerton then spoke stating that he called Mr. Robert Shaw, in the County Engineer's Office, as soon as he saw the activity going on. He asked him if the permit had been issued. He said, "no." He then asked him to go out and inspect the site. He did and called him back the next day. He asked him if over ten thousand square feet of soil in his opinion had been moved, and he agreed that it had been moved. At this same time, Mr. Edgerton was being required to post a $14,000 bond on work further down the road and the inspector was holding up the work until he got the money. When he said to Mr. Shaw that he thought the same issue applied to this situation, Mr. Shaw replied that technically it did, but they were not going to enforce it. Mr. Shaw said that, practically, they cannot enforce this ordinance on every subdivision and that he will not require it on all the lot owners in the new subdivision. Mr. Edgerton told Mr. Shaw that he wanted him to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Shaw then said that it will not accomplish what Mr. Edgerton wanted and that was that Mr. Edgerton did not want anybody to build up there. Mr. Edgerton answered that that was not the case at all, and that he wanted the ordinance enforced. Mr. Shaw told him once again that he would not enforce it, and at this point Mr. Edgerton called Mr. Agnor. Mr. Edgerton said Mr. Agnor had called him back and said the County Engineer had decided to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Edgerton does not think that it is fair to say they had decided this on their own, because Mr. Shaw had told him twice that he would not enforce the ordinance. Mr. Agnor responded that the process does not give Mr. Shaw the power to make that decision. Mr. Lindstrom said that if Mr. Shaw is the lead man, and his attitude is that sometimes he will enforce it and sometimes he will not then by the time the process superimposes itself upon his decision, it may be too late. This concerns him. Mr. Agnor replied to Mr. Lindstrom by saying that the work had already been completed, and therefore Mr. Shaw was going to require voluntary compliance with the soil erosion measures that will be needed but not the filing of a formal plan and posting of a bond. The work did not disturb more than ten thousand feet, but it was clearing of the underbrush more than it was moving the dirt in terms of actual grading. That was Mr. Shaw's opinion. Mr. Fisher said he thinks what Mr. Edgerton has related today is very damaging as far as enforcement of that ordinance, but it has taken place and is done. He will leave that to staff to deal with for the future. Before the Board today is the question of whether the Board can suspend or rescind the subdivision if it so desires and the long term issue of what to do with the ordinance, itself, to prevent future recurrences. He asked Mr. St. John what authority the Board has to consider taking action on the subdivision that has been approved as a family division. Mr. St. John answered by saying that the owner is not at the meeting today, and he understands that he has been given no notice that this matter is being discussed except insofar as it appears on the agenda. He feels that the Board's only possible action is to give notice to this owner that it is going to take this matter up at a future date. He thinks the Board has no authority to rescind the administrative action taken by the agent of the Board. He does not think the Board can rescind, revoke or suspend the effect of the approval that has already been given. He has an Attorney General's opinion dated June 20 on the subject of family divisions, and he will ask the Clerk to put it in the Board members' packets next time. He gave a copy of it to Mr. Gouldman because it answers some questions that have been around for a good while as to what the Code means on family divisions. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he believes the staff was acting within its discretion and within its legal authority to approve this subdivision. Mr. St. John stated he believes that the staff approval was mandated by the existing statute and that the County's existing ordinance is in some ways in conflict with that statute and is more restrictive against the family division than the Code allows. He thinks that Mr. Gouldman is absolutely correct when 128 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 18) he says that if this lot does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not exempt from those requirements. It may not be able to get a building permit, etc., if those requirements are valid. Mr. Lindstrom said it looks like this is a situation where an appeal would be made to the B.Z.A. and the owner would say, "Well, look, I've.done all of this work and I'm really up against it, and I've got.to have some approval here." .Then they would go ahead and do it. This is a minor thing in the overall context of the County, but in terms of impressing people as to how ordinances are administered, it is a "black eye." Mr. St. John said the problem is that this is a provision that can be abused. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the adjacent property owner had no notice, and he has no reason not to believe his statement that he was told by the County he would be notified of any future attempts to subdivide the property. The Board cannot discuss this question in an effective way at this meeting because the property owner is not here. The adjacent property owner was not consulted about it either, so he is forced to a position where he cannot do anything because of that concern. It is a very unpleasant situation. Mr. Gouldman said he asked specifically, when he found out the meeting would occur, if the property owner would be notified. He asked if it was clear that the owner had not been notified. Mr. St. John asked how he was informed. Mr. Fisher stated that the Clerk has indicated that the owner was not notified. Mr. Bowie commented that he did not think this discussion should go any further without hearing the property owner's side. He has some feelings about it however based on just this half of the story. He has so far supported the family division, and he does not see how there can be an ordinance without a loophole. He would like more information. Mr. Lindstrom said this discussion could be deferred and the property owner notified if there is some action that can be taken. However, he thinks it is futile to waste everybody's time if the Board can do nothing. He has gathered from Mr. St. John that, as to this case, there is nothing that can be done. Mr. St. John replied that that is what he believes. He said that the Board may want to hear from Mr. Gouldman and the arguments pro and con and then decide if Mr. St. John is right. But he believes that legally the Board's hands are tied, and the remedy for the problem of the adjacent owner has to be determined in court because of the way the state Code sections are worded. Mr. Fisher commented that there is nothing in the state Code that would preclude notice to the adjacent owners. Mr. St. John replied that the Code does not require notice to the adjacent owners. Once this permit has been given out and vested in the owner, the vested right cannot be taken from him or rescinded or revoked unless there is some fundamental procedural defect amounting to due process violation. Neither the federal standards nor the state Code requires any notice, and that can't be used as the grounds for taking back a property right that he now has as a vested right. Mr. Gouldman agreed with Mr. St. John on the effect of the Zoning Ordinance. He asked the Board to assume that Mr. St. John is right, and the Board cannot do anything to take back or rescind the subdivision approval. He still sees some merit to having the owner come in and telling him that the thing has been approved administratively, but the Zoning Ordinance will have to be enforced, and it does require the slope requirement, so that he can't claim later that the County misled him by giving him approval and that he has a vested right to violate the Zoning Ordinance. He has a vested right to a subdivision, but not to violate the Zoning Ordinance. If he has notice, and comes to the Board and is told face to face that this is the problem, then this may do him a favor because he will not have gone out and spent a lot of additional money on plans, etc., and not be knowledgeable of the situation as soon as the Board learns of it. Mr. Henley commented that he does not think the Board should have to tell anybody that they have to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements, and Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Agnor said this would have to be told to every subsequent owner, because the proper- ty may be sold several times. He does not see any value in that. When the owner applies for a building permit, it will be determined whether they will have to comply with the runoff control ordinance. The specific sites for the septic system will have to be located, and the slope problems will be dealt with at that point in time. He understands what Mr. Gouldman is saying, but he can see where this gentleman may clear off the underbrush and turn around and sell the property. What happens to the next owner? Mr. Henley said that if the staff wants to tell the owner, it is fine. But, he does not think the Board should call everybody in that is going to subdivide and tell them that they have to meet the Code standards. Mr. Fisher stated that this case is one that he knows something about, and he knows the Planning Commission was concerned and this Board and adjacent property owners were concerned about the divisions. If anything comes up about any kind of waiver or variance on anything on this lot, he hopes the staff will notify this Board immediately, so that Board members will at least have a chance to review it in a timely fashion. He does not see at this time any other thing the Board can do. Mr. St. John commented that that would include any application for variance because that has to go through the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator would notify the Board so they could appear at the B.Z.A. meeting. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 19) Mr. Gouldman mentioned that the plat that was approved March 26 has a 50-foot access easement on it, taking off from the cul-de-sac over to.the adjacent property. He said the Planning Commission and the Board have not seen it, so he does not know what the implication of that easement is. He said that was tried five years ago, and was thought of as a bad idea at that time. Mr. Edgerton said that five years ago the~Planning Commission denied this subdivision because this piece of land was not big enough to support two lots. However, there is a note on that plat stating that there is over 30,000 square feet of buildable area on each lot. He does not believe it because he has done a lot of studies.on that .lot. He has paid profes- sionals to do it. He said that when Dr. Hurt owned the land, he ~could not prove to the Planning Commission that there were two buildable areas of 30,000 square feet, at which point he dropped back and showed it as one lot in a subdivision. He then told Mr. Edgerton that he would subdivide it later, and he said the way he would .do it was to build a guest house. Then once it was built, he would apply for a subdivision. Mr. Edgerton says he knows the process of building permits and septic permits too well to be~comforted by the thought that they are protecting him or the watershed. He feels ~that a~house will be built and then they will start to figure out where they will put their septic field. Then they will call the Health Department, who will respond that there is a nice house up there, so the septic field will need to go down here. At that point the site is no longer a reasonable facsimile of what it was before. The process is at fault. This ordinance is the only protection that landowners have. If the information on the plat is incorrect, would it not give the Board the opportunity to rescind that plat? He inquired that if there is not more than 30,000 square feet of buildable area on each lot, wouldn't that be an invalid and illegal applica- tion? Mr. St. John replied that if that is the case, then the procedure by which the Board would have to take action to revoke that plat would be to seek a judicial decision with the County as the plantiff, They would have no authority to administratively revoke the plat. He would feel better about doing it judically because~then there is discovery. The people can be questioned under oath. There are a lot of other things in addition to the 30,000 square feet. What Mr. Edgerton is talking about is a case of fraud. You have to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. He does not think these things give the Board grounds, at this point, to revoke what's been done. He is assuming that the right is vested. Mr. Edgerton asked if the Board could require the staff to hold up any further work until this information is supplied. The man cleared more than 10,000 square feet without a permit or a bond. He has broken the law. He thinks the staff should have the authority to stop his activity until he meets the law. If the law is the Zoning Ordinance, then he needs to fulfill those requirements. To suggest that there is no reason to be concerned about this piece of property, as Mr. Shaw did, he thinks is stretching it a bit. Mr. Fisher asked if this is the same property on which the Planning Commission and the Board rejected the plat. Mr. Edgerton said it is exactly the same, but the plat that has been submitted is a redrawn plat that was drawn by Dr. Hurt's surveyor with the same 160 foot division line. It is to the inch what the Planning Commission turned down five and one-half years ago. After slope studies that were done by Mr. Buddy Edwards, who was the previous owners' surveyor, they could not demonstrate that this piece of land could support two lots. Mr. St. John stated that if this permit is revoked and causes these people monetary damages, and it is found out after this is done that there is room for two septic fields, etc., he feels that the County will be looking at a federal civil rights suit for damages and punitive damages. He said that Mr. Edgerton is assuming that the plat is fraudulent before there is any concrete evidence or probable cause that it is fraudulent. He reminded the Board that these people, according to the record, have no notice that this is being dis- cussed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is frustrated because this is such a big issue. He asked Mr. St. John if he can meet with Mr. Gouldman and his client, as the Board's representative, some time today or tomorrow to look at the documents and files and see if there is not a blatant contradiction of the action of the Planning Commission and the information that's in the file and determine if there is substance to what has been said? Then, based upon that, he asked Mr. St. John to see if there is anything that can be done to defer further action by the developer until some of these things can be worked out. Mr. St. John said before he takes any action or recommends any action to the Board to hold this matter up, he would want to contact the owner or the owner's attorney. It does not matter to him if this is done at the same time he talks with Mr. Gouldman, or after that. Mr. Lindstrom asked that Mr. St. John take those investigative steps that have been indicated as appropriate by the comments made at this meeting as quickly as he can. He wants to include representatives of or the owner of the property. He feels that if they wait a. week and everything is done, the effect of it will not be too great. He suggested that maybe Mr. St. John could look at it over lunch break to see if anything can be done. (NOTE: Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 11:23 A. M.) Mr. St. John responded that the filings that Mr. Gouldman gave the Board are now a part of the record, and he will look at them in the office. Mr. Lindstrom said he would leave it to Mr. St. John as to how quickly he can look at it, but he thinks it would be good if he can look at it some time today. Mr. St. John said it would depend on what else he is needed for on the Agenda today. Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom to request the County Attorney to take those investiga- tive steps as quickly as possible with the representative of the owners of the property. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Way said he had not been there for the discussion, so he would abstain from voting. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Way. 130 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of Capital Improvements Program 1986/87-1990/91 (continued from July 2, 1986). The following memorandum, dated July 8, 1986, from the County Executive was presented: "Attached are revised Page 1 (Revenue Sources) and Page 2 (Proposed Projects/Expenditures) as of July 8, 1986, of the Capital Improvement Program budget summaries. The revisions in revenue sources are as follows: Add the net proceeds from the sale of the White Hall School in the amount of $45,000 for FY 86-87. Increase the repayments of the Volunteer Fire Companies by $17,100 per year from FY 1987-88 through FY 1990-91 for a total of $68,400 increase over the four-year period. This increase represents the payback resulting from the recent $120,000 advanced allocation to the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company. The above increases to revenues make the Grand Total funds available change from $18,638,215 to $18,751,615 over the five-year period. The revisions in project allocations/expenditures to the Volunteer Fire Companies by $17,100 for four years beginning 1987-88, or a total of $68,400 are shown as Item III on page 2. The Grand Total project cost estimates for the five-year period changes from $19,633,888 to.$19,702,288. Staff recommends your final action on the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Budget including these revisions." Mr. Fisher reminded everyone that a Public Hearing was held last week on this matter, and it has gone through all the processes. He said that no changes were suggested by the Board at last week's meeting. He asked if there are any amendments suggested by the staff. Mr. Agnor mentioned only those revenue changes set out in his memorandum. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Capital Improvements Budget, as it now stands, is reflective of the recommendation of the report on Crozet School. Mr. Agnor responded, "yes." He also reminded the Board that two actions would be needed, one to adopt the program and one for the appropriation of the 1986-87 budget. Mr. Agnor commented that information on the CIP Program was available in the County Executive's Office which showed the Five-Year Program outlined year-by-year listing the projects, the dollar value and the total fundings. He is asking the Board to appropriate today the first year's funds of the Five-Year Program. He said the Clerk only advertised the CIP Program, but he feels that it is one and the same thing. Mr. St. John said that the Board could make the appropriations today. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the 1986/87-1990./91 Capital Improvements Program amended this date, and the 1986/87 CIP Budget resolution, as set out on the following pages. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. PRO3ECT · 1. Automation 0£ COurt. Serv-{ces 2. Sub-Total II. EDUCATION 1J Me~iwe=~her Lewis School = new r~p!a-eement school 2. stone Robinson Elam. School - ma3or ~enovation 3. Crozet Elem. School - major renovation a~ ~ and Parking b. Roof 5. le SLhool: a. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. c. Electrical/Mechanical etectmech, library, Stony Po~nt~iem. School - major renovation Woodbrook Elem. SchoOl - b. Electrical/Mechanical BroWnsville Elam. School - eleCtrical/mechanical ALBEMARLE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM YEARS 1986-87 THROUGH 1990-91 TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL COUNTY PRIOR FUNDING SHARE APPROPRIATION (5-YEAR PERIOD) FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 1987~88 i988-89 1989-90 1990-91 $ 25.237 $ 25_.237 1,200,000 300.000 $ -0- $ 25,237 $ -0= $ 25,237 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- -0- 300,000 -0- 50,000 250,000 -0- Z2&,O00 22~,000 125,000 125,000 $ 1,57~,237 $ 67~,237 $ -0- 22~.000 -0- 125,,000 -0- $ 67~,237 224,000 ,0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 125~000 , -0-. $ 22~,000 $ 75,237 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 $ -0- $ 200,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 -0- 2,700,000 2,700,000 -0- 75~000 75~000 -0= 33,000 33,000 -0- 200,000 200,000 -D- 50,000 50.000 -0- 65,000 65,000 -0- 1,500~000 1,500,900 -0- 1,'300;0o0 ~,360;6o0 -o- 90)000 -0- 125,000 -0- 75,000 75,000 -0- 60.000 60,000 -0- 560,000 560,000 -0- 870,000 870,000 -0- 100,000 100,000 '0- 750,000 750,000 -0- 350,000 350.000 -0- 75,000 75,000 -0- 165,O00 165,000 -0- 3,863,000 $3,863,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,700,000 100,000 75,000 55,000 33,000 33,000 200,000 '0- 50,000 -0- 65,000 65,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 11300,000 -o- 90,000 -0- 125~o0o -o= 75,000 -0- 60,000 -0- 560,000 -0- 870,000 -0- 100,000 -0- 750,000 -0- 350,000 -0- 75,000 -0' 165,000 -0- $ -o- $ -o- $ -o- $ -o- -0- -O- -O- -0- 2,000,000 600,000 -0- -0- 20.000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -O- -0- 200,000 -0- '0 ........ 0- 50,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 1,300,000 -0- 90,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 125,000 -0- -0- -0- 75,000 -0- -0- 60,000 -0- -0' -0- -0- 560,000 -0- -0- -0- 870,000 -0- -0- -0- 100,000 -0- -0- o0- 750,000 -0- -0- -0- '0- 350,000 -O- -0- -0- 75,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 165,000 Page 2 TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR FUNDING PROJECT COST SHARE APPROPRIATION 14. Greet Elem, School - electrical/mechanical $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ -0- 15. Jouett Middle School - electrical/mechanical 75,000 75,000 -0- 16. Walton Middle School - electrical/mechanical 80,000 80,000 , -0- ~17- Western Albemarle High School - field development 36,300 31,300 -O- Sub-Total $14,982,300 $14,977,300 $ 200,000 'III. IV. POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY 1. Fire Service Training Center $ 288,975 2. Volunteer Fire Departments - Advance Allocation Program 1,800,000 3. Scottsvilte Rescue Squad - New vehicle 25,000 $ 2,113,975 Sub-Total $ 125,000 $ 100,000 1,800,000 800,000 25,000 -0- $ 1,950,000 $ 900,000 FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR (5-YEAR PERIOD) 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 $ 85,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ 85,000 75,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 75,000 80,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 80,000 31,300 31,300 -0- -0- -0- -0- $14,777,300 $7,147,300 $2,420,000 $3,080,000 $1,725,000 $405,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 673,472 200,000 143,243 143,243 121,743 65,243 25,000 25,000 -0- -0- =0- -0- $ 723,472 $ 250,000 $ 143,243 $ 143,243 $ 121,743 $ 65,243 HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 1. Hydraulic Road Pathway $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 45,000 $ -0- $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ -0- $ -0- 2. Route 678 Relocation 264,338 150,000 -0- 150,000 150,000 -0- -0- -0- -O- Sub-Total $ 314,338 $ 200,000 $ 5,000 $ 195,000 $ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ -0- $ -0- V. LIBRARIES No request. VI. MISCF3.I.ANEOUS 1. County Computer Upgrading Sub-Total VII. $ 673,317 $ 673,317 $ -0- $ 673,317 $ 673,317 $ -0- $ 673,317 $ 96,750 $ 124,750 $ 164,750 $ 226,750 $ 60,317. $ 673,317 $ 96,750 $ 124,750 $ 164,750 $ 226,750 $ 60,317 PARKS kNDRECREATION 1. City-County Urban Park $ 2,658,780 $ 1,364,165 $ 396,900 $ 967,265 $ 370,100 $ 327,000 $ -0- $ -0- $270,165 2. Southern Regional Park 1,400,000 1,400,000 20,000 1,380,000 500,000 550,000 330,000 -0- -0- 3. Greenwood Community Center - Outdoor basketball court 10,600 10,600 -0- 10,600 -0- -0- 10,600 -0- -0- 4. Mint Springs Valley Park - Handicapped accessibility 50,000 50,000 -0- 50,000 -0- -0- 50,000 -0- -0- 5. Ivy Creek Natural Area - Tenant house improvement 42,174 21,087 -0- 21,087 7,087 14,000 -0- -0- -0- 6. Crozet Pa~k - buildings and grounds improvements 50,910 50,910 4,000 46,910 12,200 11,710 11,000 12,000 -0- Page 3 PROJECT 7. Red Hill - baseball field improvements 8. Scottsville Community Center - roof repair 9. Western Albemarle - TOTAL PROJECT COUNTY COST SHARE TOTAL PRIOR FUNDING APPROPRTATION (5-YEAR PERIOD) 1986-87 1987-88 FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 1989-90 1990~91 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ -0- $ 5,000 $ 5,ooo $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 30,000 30,000 -0- 30,000 30,000 -0- -0- -0- tennis court resurfacing 10,800 10,800 -0- 10,800 10,800 --0- -0- -0- ~lO_We~tern Alb~ma~rle ~ ~ field development 36.300 31,~00 -0- 31,300 31,300 -0- -0- -0- 11. Beave~ Creek Park - handicapped accessibility 25,000 25z000 -0- 25,000 -0- -O- 25,000 -0- 12. GreenwoodCommunity Center - wooden playground 5,000 5~000 -0- 5,000 -0- -0- $ 4,324,56~ $3,003,862 - $ 420,900 $ 2,582,962 VIII. UTILITIES--COUNTY PROJECTS - 2- Berkshir~RoadChannel $ 15,000 $ 15,O00 $ -0- $ 15,000 2- WoodbrookChann~l 18,000 18,000 -0- 18,000 3. Bennington Channel 20,000 20,000 -0- 20,000 4. King George Circle 11,000 11,000 -0- 11,000 5. Rio Heights 12,000 12,000 -0- 12,000 Sub-total $ 76,000 $ :76,000 $ -0- $ 76,000 Total $24,058,731 $21,55~,716 $1,525,900 $19,702,288 -0- 5,000 $ 966,~87 $ 902,710 $ 426,600 $ 17,000 $270,165 $ -o- $ 15,ooo $ -o- $ -o- $ -o- -0- -0- -0- 18,000 -0- 20,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 11,000 -0- -0- -0- 12,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- $ 32,000 $ 26,000 $ -0- $ 18,000 $8,866,537 $3,716,940 $4,084,593 $2,233,493 '0- $800,725 'Education and Parks & Recreation will split the cost of this project. Total project cost $72,600; County share is $62,600. Approved by Board of Supervisors July 9, 1986 Clerk, Board of ~o '0% July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 135 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, that $10,598,497.09 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund and coded as follows: 1-9000-12200-700700 Computer Upgrade 1-9000-32010-975803 Fire Training Center 1-9000-32020-975801 Volunteer Fire Departments 1-9000-32030-700500 Scottsville Rescue Squad Vehicle 1-9000-41100-702015 Route 678 Relocation 1-9000-43100-999999 County Office Building Contingency 1-9000-60623-999999 Crozet Elementary School 1-9000-60627-999999 Meriwether Lewis School 1-9000-60632-999999 Stone Robinson Elementary School 1-9000-60751-705000 A.H.S.-Paving 1-9000-60751-705010 A.H.S.-Roof Replacement 1-9000=60761-705020 W.A.H.S.-Field Development 1-9000-60771-705010 Burley-Roof Replacement 1-9000-60771-999999 Burley-Energy Improvements 1-9000-71000-702014 Crozet Park Improvements 1-9000-71000-702016 Ivy Creek-Tenant House 1-9000-71000-702017 Red Hill-Baseball Field 1-9000-71000-701018 Scottsville Comm. Center-Roof 1-9000-71000-702019 W.A.H.S. Tennis Court Resurfacing 1-9000-71000-702020 W.A.H.S. Field Development 1-9000-71001-999999 Southern Regional Park 1-9000-71002-999999 City-County Urban Park 1-9000-93010-596003 Transfer to Storm Drainage 1-9000-99999-999998 Unallocated Fund Balance 1-9100-41044-999999 Bennington Channel 1-9100-41045-999999 Rio Heights 96,750.00 25,000.00 200,000.00 25,000.00 150,000.00 224,000.00 100,000.00 3,863,000.00 1,500,000.00 55,000.00 33,000.00 31,300.00 65,000.00 1,500,000.00 12,200.00 7,087.00 5,000.00 30,000.00 10,800.00 31,300.00 500,000.00 370,100.00 32,000.00 1,699,960.09 20,000.00 12,000.00 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $10,598,497.09 to the following Revenue Codes: 2-9000-15000-189907 Sale of Property-McIntire 2-9000-19000-190304 Fire Dept. Repayments 2-9000-19000-190305 Rescue Squad Payments 2-9000-41000-410400 Literary Fund Loans 2-9000-51000-510100 Fund Balance 2-9000-51000-512004 Transfer from General Fund 2-9100-51000-512000 Transfer from Capital Imp. $ 45,000.00 126,143.00 20,800.00 2,000,000.00 7,374,554.09 1,000,000.00 32,000.00 FURTHER, Jthat this appropriate is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 11. Personnel Policies, discussion of commonality of. Mr. Agnor said this is a policy that the Board has already seen and he recommended that it be approved or amended as needed. Mr. Fisher asked if there had been any feedback from anyone in the school administration or the School Board. Mr. Agnor answered, "no sir." Mr. Way said he would certainly like to have some feedback from the School Board. However, when it was presented to the Board of Supervisors the first time they didn't take any action at all. He feels that it is appropriate for the Board to take action on it so that at least the Supervisors' action will be known concerning the matter. He does not have particular problems with the statement as it is written. He feels that it has enough flexi- bility within it to work, and he ~otally supports the basic concept. Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt the policy as presented (and which is set out in full below). Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. "The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and School Board agree with the principle that employees of the local government and school division are all County employees, and, as Such, should be treated consistently, where appropriate and consistent with local policies and State statutes, with regard to salaries, benefits, and other personnel policies. The Boards hold the County Executive and the Superintendent responsible for administering such consistent policies, and for making joint recommendations, where appropriate, to the Boards." Agenda Item No. 12. Employees. Administrative Performance Evaluation Plan, General Government The following memorandum, dated June 27, 1986, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive, was received: "The current Performance Evaluation Plan for general government employees rates job description factors specifically related to an employee's job description, and also rate~ performance characteristics applicable to all County employees. There h~s been no provision for evaluating leadership characteristics applicable to administrative, supervisory personnel, and I believe such a provision should be included for department heads and upper' level administrators. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) The 'school division has used an evaluation plan for their administrative staff, and has recently adopted a separate evaluation plan for their other employees similar to that used by general government. Staff has examined the school division's Administrative Evaluation Plan and has recommended it for adoption for evaluating general government administrative employees. The plan retains the Job Description section that is used for all employees, and replaces the Performance Characteristics section with a Leadership Characteristics section that contains factors that are both performance oriented, and supervisory oriented, i.e., problem solving, decision-making, supervision of operations, effective goal setting, etc. Additionally, the Administrative Plan includes a section for establishing written objectives which are mutually agreed upon by the administrator being evaluated, and their immediate supervisor. It is unclear to me as to whether or not Board approval is required to amend a performance evaluation plan. It could be considered an administrative responsibility of my office, or that of the Personnel Director. However, I deemed it important to relate the change, and seek your approval, or your concurrence in the concept, whichever is deemed appropriate." Mr. Agnor stated he is not sure if this needs Board approval, but he wanted the Board to be aware of the amendment. He asked for approval or concurrence with the plan. He said he would be happy to copy and distribute the whole plan if the Board so wishes. Mr. Way commented that he thinks it is just following through on what was just passed which is getting everybody more and more on the same basis. He concurs completely. Mr. Fisher said there appears to be no objections. Agenda Item No. 13. Monthly Building Activity Report, discussion of. memorandum, dated June 27, 1986, was received from the County Executive: The following "Periodically, staff reviews the format and necessity for cyclical reports. In recent discussions, Mr. Tucker and I concluded the Monthly Building Activity Report should be reviewed. Please consider the following ques- tions, and provide staff with your conclusions: 1. Is the report needed? 2. If so, should it be monthly, or would quarterly be sufficient? 3. Would you favor the following changes in format? a) Discontinue the narrative portion. The information it con- tains is distributed to individual Board members as appli- cations are received from their districts. b) Reduce the number of the listings of statistical data to those determined by the Board to be useful or needed, i.e., remove the breakdown of housing units by school districts, or remove the estimated cost of construction by magisterial district, or remove the listing of erosion control permits. c) Where possible, would you prefer the remaining statistical data be presented in graph or bar chart format for easier reading? Thank you for your discussion and response. Removing the data is not intended to eliminate the collection of statistics needed to review building activity by the staff or Planning Commission. It is intended to reduce the paperwork that you peruse." Mr. Fisher said he liked the information in the report, but he thinks a quarterly report would be enough. Mr. Way and Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Bowie stated that some of it would be okay to receive quarterlY. But the only thing that bothers him is the building permit issue. He said that is all on the first page. Mr. Fisher then directed the staff to get the detailed information to the Board on a quarterly basis, but the update on the building permits should be on a monthly basis. Mr. Fisher said to staff members.that he does read these reports and spends time going through them to see where houses are being built according to school districts. He feels the quar- terly report may be more revealing as to trends. Mr. Horne said all of the information will continue to be logged, so if at any time any Board member would like a specific piece of information it will be available in the office. Mr. Bowie offered motion to receive only a portion of the report on a monthly basis and the remainder quarterly. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 137 Agenda Item No. 14. butions. Report on School Classified Employee Evaluations and Merit Distri- Mr. Overstreet said this is the first attempt at establishing any type of system that includes merit or performance-related distribution among employees who are in classified ranges. The evaluation was set up so all that was .needed was some kind of remuneration system. Most of the comments that he got from people who had to evaluate classified person- nel, such as principals who had a lot of classified personnel, was that the evaluation, itself, was so time-consuming. He said it is lengthy and sometimes they found that it was taking longer and more effort than the evaluation of the professionals. They are going to look at it this summer to try to tone it down some. But it has been completed. Mr. Overstreet next went over the figures and explained that this is a tier arrangement just as it is for administrators. For those who received a satisfactory rating, they will receive, effective July 1, a three and one-half percent salary increase which is vested. That was accomplished by giving each person one step and sliding the scale one percent. The top category of employees received a raise that qualified them for that level where they got their vested increase and in addition to that they received a three percent non-vested salary increase or bonus. This is a one-time payment made to them on July 1. It is not reflected in nor is it part of this salary and does not become vested. He said he was pleased with the merit system and thinks it was generally successful. Mr. Bowie said he is pleased to see that the School system is doing merit increases, because he has been pushing for that for three years. He said these should not be vested and should be lump sum payments. He hopes it works and hopes it can be considered in the future. He would support the greater level of award if it were not vested. He says a merit system that finds 56 percent meritorious is not a merit system. It is a way to raise pay. He said that the County general government also had 56 percent of their employees recommended for merit pay. He told them the same thing so he felt that he should say it to the school system, also. He thinks the way it is being handled, however, is excellent. Mr. Way said he feelS that school classified employees and general government classified employees should be basically on the same system and evaluated the same way. He mentioned that since the school form is too long, that maybe assistance could be obtained from Mr. Agnor, and maybe the two systems could be meshed together. His goal is to see them all practically the same. Mrs. Cooke supported Mr. Way's statement. Mr. Overstreet thanked the Board for its assistance, and especially its financial assistance for the opportunity to get the system in place this year. Agenda Item No. 15a. Appropriation: Education Department. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Direc- tor of Finance, summarized that basically there are four appropriations that he will present to the Board some dealing with the last fiscal year and some dealing with the new fiscal year. He discussed the actual figures .that were in the memos that had been given to the Board of Supervisors and explained why adjustments were needed. Mr. Fisher asked when the County's books will close, and Mr. Breeden answered that the first run of the June 30 financial statements was finished this morning. He is anticipating that by August 15 they will have all of the final closings. Mr. Fisher separated items and asked for motions in each category. The following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated July 2, 1986, was presented: "Several activities in the Education system will require year end adjust- ments and additional appropriations. The attached memorandum from the School Superintendent outlines the adjustments required. The School Board anticipated earlier in the year that fees from the sale or rental of textbooks would not meet the budgeted projections and that it would be necessary to transfer as much as $25,000 from the School Fund to the Textbook Fund. The request for this transfer was delayed in order to determine the actual amount required. At this point, it is apparent that textbook revenues will fall short by $24,187.55. In addition, actual expenditures will exCeed the appropriation by approximately $4,441.9'3, resulting in a total shortage of $28,629.48. This overexpenditure amount is slightly more than stated in the Superintendent's memorandum due to expendi- tures made since his meeting with the School Board. Since it is very possible that other minor expenditures or year end adjustments may occur in the Textbook Fund, I am recommending an additional appropriation of $5,191.98 in order to allow some cushion for this possibility. This overexpenditure and shortfall of revenue can be funded by use of the current Textbook Fund balance of $10,507.00 and a transfer from the School Fund in the amount of $18,872.53. Due to the expansion of the After School Enrichment Program to all elemen- tary schools, and the addition of the Community Education Program at Walton, the Community Education Fund will require an additional appropriation of $72,180.00. This amount would be funded from the additional revenues received in the amount of $59,841.00 and the transfer of $12,339.00 from the School Fund. These programs are intended to be self-sustaining, however, this was not possible due to the initial start up cost of the new programs." Mr. Fisher interrupted Mr. Breeden's presentation of the appropriation for the After School Enrichment Program by saying he remembered the school administration personnel standing before this Board and saying if the additional appropriations were approved for the July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 28) after school programs that they would be totally self-supporting and would not require tax funds from other persons who are not participating in the programs. He thinks this indicates that this promise has been broken. He is not happy aboUt it. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Fisher and said that part of the reason he had supported the original program was that it would be self-supporting. Mr. Breeden said that he believes these programs will be self-sustaining and feels that ~ithin this current fiscal year or at least the next couple of years the revenue will be of ~uch a nature that this amount of money can be transferred back to the School Fund. However this is the status as of June 30, 1986. Mr. Fisher stated that this Board has made it very clear that it will not support day care operations. He will not vote for this appropriation. Mr. Overstreet asked how long the after school programs had been in existence and was told it had been two years. Mr. Overstreet said that must be when the promise was made, but that they were not self-sustaining last year, so the deficit was twice as much last year, and it has been cut in half. He stated that Mr. Amory Stamp and he have concluded that by next year the program should be totally self-sustaining. He said that participation had doubled this year, and he thinks the programs are headed in the right direction. Mr. Way asked if the programs are self-sustaining if that mean that each school is self-sustaining, or is it an overall situation. Mr. Overstreet said he believes that it is the overall program. He said one particular school may help fund another. Mr. Breeden mentioned that the program is the Community Education Program which operates at Walton. This is a new program and is basically for adults. Mr. Overstreet said these are popular programs. Mr. Way said the danger of this kind of program is that some of the elementary schools that are located in some of the wealthier areas of the County can wind up having very exten- sive kinds of programs and those schools that are mainly in the poorer sections could wind up with things that were considerably less. He would rather see the programs administered centrally so that they will be basically equal throughout the area rather than totally by individual school. Mr. Overstreet replied that it is a centralized function, and it is important to keep that balance. Mr. Breeden commented the new program in 1984-85 was an activity that was included the School Fund. Therefore, deficits of these activities were not as noticeable and did not result in actual over-expenditure of the appropriation. Now funds are set up in separate accounts for the 1985-86 school year, and that is the reason they are more noticeable at this point. Mr. Fisher made the point to everybody that if the revenues are not there, then the money should not'be spent. He does not think there should be any transfer of general govern- ment funds into this program. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Fisher and said that at a recent joint meeting with the School Board it was indicated that there would be a surplus. Is there still money left over? Mr. Breeden said, at this point, the School Fund balance will be sufficient to support its funding of the 1986-87 budget as originally projected even after covering this. Mr. Breeden then discussed the appropriation for the Remedial Education Program ~for the year 1986-87, as contained in his memorandum of July 2, 1986: "Based on the attached memorandum from N. Andrew Overstreet the County will receive an additional $215,229 from the State during Fiscal Year 1986/87. The purpose of this additional funding is to provide a Remedial Education Program. Based on the decision that school funds would only be appropriated by the Categories set out by State Code, you should note that the attached Appro- priation Form contains substantially less information. Since more detailed information is actually required for accounting purposes, I have also at- tached the line item details for information only. I respectfully request appropriation of these funds as outlined on the attached appropriation form and as approved by the School Board." Mr. Fisher said he is very much in favor of this program, and he is glad the state is going to support it. At this time, Mr. Way offered motion to approve the first set of requests as submitted by adopting the following resolutions. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,191.98 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Textbook Fund and coded as follows: 1-7000-63070-541100 1-2000-60000-999999 1-2000-93010-591104 Books & Subscriptions Contingency Transfer-Textbook Fund $ 5,191.98 -18,872.53 18,872.52 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $5,191.98 the following Revenue Codes: 2-7000-16000-161203 2-7000-51000-510100 2-7000-51000-512000 Sales/Rental of Textbooks Fund Balance-Textbook Fund Balance-School ($24,187.55) 10,507.00 18,872.53 FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $72,180 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Community Education Fund and coded as follows: 1-2300-60000-100135 Compensation-Teachers 1-2000-60000-999999 Contingency 1-2000-93010-596004 Transfer-Community Education Fund $72,180 -12,339 12,339 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $72,180 to the following Revenue Codes: 2-2300-16000-161201 Tuition 2-2300-51000-512000 Transfer from School Fund $59,841 12,339 FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Mr. Way next offered motion to adopt the following resolution for the Remedial Education Program. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $215,229 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund, transferred to the Remedial Education Program, and coded as follows: 17B Instruction $168,481 17G Fixed Charges 46,748 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $215,229 to the following Revenue: State Remedial Education $215,229 FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Social Services Department. The following memo- randum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated July 2, 1986, was received: "Notice has been received that Albemarle County has been allotted additional State funds for several Social Services programs. These programs will provide additional State revenues of $41,542.00 but will require local matching funds in the amount of $5,413.00. Details of the individual programs are as follows: In-Home (Companion) Services - Additional State funding in the amount of $8,132 with a local match of $2,033. This program will not require the actual appropriation of additional local funds since the County has already appropriated $72,000 for this program in FY 1986/87 which meets the local match requirements. Adult Day Care - Additional State funding in the amount of $3,197 with a local match of $800. This program requires that the funds be used for new or additional services and therefore will require additional local funds in the amount of $800. Social Services Block Grant - Additional State funding in the amount of $5,653 With a local match of $1,884. This is an exist- ing Title XX program for which the State has been able to provide additional dollars. e Child Care - Additional State funding of $24,560 with a local match of $2,729. This is a new Title XX program which will assist low income families in payment of child care services. Families will be required to pay a portion of the charge directly to the child care provider. Local monies are available to fund the local match. Based on the request from Karen Morris, Director iof Social Services, I have prepared the attached appropriation form for your approval." July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Breeden said these appropriations all apply to this fiscal year of 1986-87 and are the result of additional funding being provided by the state for various Social Services programs. He described the programs and amounts of money outlined in his memorandum t~ Mr. Agnor and the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $800 under the Adult Day Care Program will come out of the amount that has already been approved, and Mr. Breeden answered that this would require additional local funding because it is for additional services. Mr. Bowie asked if this happened after the budget was completed, and Mr. Breeden an- swered that these are new programs or notices from the State that came in the latter part of May or June after the original budget had been adopted. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know much about the details, but he will support the programs. He said it is difficult to evaluate these things when they are out of the total budget process. He feels uneasy because he does not have much information, and because it is contrary to the position the Board has taken with agencies outside of the County government. He gathers that the In-Home Companion Service is a program that has already been approved and funded, and this is just extra money that the County can take advantage of. No loCal money will be required beyond what has already been done. The Adult Day Care Program will require $800 more than what was appropriated, but it is the same program for which funds were appro7 priated in this current budget. Mr. Fisher asked if the last three items are just expansion of things that are already in the budget. Ms. Morris said this is true except for the Adult Day Care Program. She said the money was approved this year but was given directly to JABA. It was not in the Social Services budget. The State Department of Welfare has known that a certain number of dollars were available for each one of these things since the General Assembly's last session. It took them until the end of May in most cases to find out how they would allocate these funds. They went to the localities during the General Assembly and asked if they got the additional monies, who would be interested. She Said that at the end of the budget process, she had mentioned to the Board that there might be additional monies for Child Day Care which would probably be used in the same way as the scholarships, and asked if the Board would be sup- portive, conceptually at least, if they applied for these monies.~ Her best recollection of that is that the Board said it would be supportive. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Adult Day Care Program now being handled through JABA, will be a separate program administered through Ms. Morris' Office? Ms. Morris replied that her office has to write the checks in order to access this fund. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be operated from JABA, or will it be a separate staff that will do this in Ms. Morris'Office. Ms. Morris responded that the same services will be purchased from the Adult Day Care Center as the money that this Board appropriated to JABA will be used for. Ms. Morris was asked who runs the Adult Day Care Program, and she replied that the program has its own staff. Mr. Lindstrom said the concern is that there not be two programs going on simultaneously that are separately staffed. Ms. Morris clarified the situation by saying that this money is only for the purchase of services. It doesn't fund any salary. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Social Services Block Grant is a program that is currently funded through Ms. Morris' Office. She replied, "Yes sir." Mr. Lindstrom said then it is truly just an expansion. Mr. Lindstrom then inquired if the Child Care Program is similar to the request from United Way which was turned down by this Board even though he supported the program. Ms. Morris said it could be. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is the same idea, and Ms. Morris replied, "Yes sir." Mr. Agnor tried to clarify the matter by saying that the United Way Scholarship Program is a scholarship fund that United Way administers itself. This program will provide funds only for clients of Social Services, and they will use a variety of child care centers possibly, but it will be on a case by case basis and will be administered by the Social Services Department. Ms. Morris explained that this is a special appropriation by the General Assembly to assist low-income, working parents to secure child care services. Mr. Fisher said this is what the County has been asking for, and Ms. Morris responded that it is the first time the State has done it. It requires the provider to have a fee schedule with the State schedule being adopted, or the locality can establish its own. She said they will probably use the same fee schedule used by United Way just for consistency. Her office will be determining the eligibility requirements and administering the funds. Mr. Bowie said he can see the difference between this program and the United Way Pro- gram. He opposed the United Way Program, not because he does not believe in child care, but because he believes that is a voluntary contribution and not a mandatory contribution. He can support this. Mr. Lindstrom said he has supported the concept in the past and will support it now. He will support the appropriation that is requested because there is substantial leverage involved. He understands the procedural reasons that have brought this to the Board after completion of the budget session. He is still not comfortable with this, but he does think that advantage should be taken of the leverage. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31). 141 Mr. Lindstrom moved that the request be approved by adopting the following resolution. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $46,955 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund, transferred to the Social Services Department, and coded as follows: 1-1000-53020-571101 1-1000-53020-571003 1-1000-53020-571103 1-1000-53020-571104 Companion Services Adult Day Care SSBG-Purchase of Services Child Care 8,132 3,997 7,537 27,289 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $46,955 to the following Revenue Codes: 2-1000-24000-240102 2-1000-51000-510100 Public Assistance/Welfare Appropriation from Fund Balance $41,542 5,413 FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 16. Charge for Asbestos Disposal at Ivy Landfill. The following memorandum from the County Executive dated July 3, 1986, brought this matter to the Board: "Recent regulations imposed by the State Bureau of Hazardous Waste Disposal to dispose of asbestos material will result in increased capital and operat- ing costs for the Ivy Landfill. The regulations require a fenced, secure area separated from other disposal areas, and specific handling methods involving hand placement of the material in the disposal trench by employees with protection masks. Staff recommends an initial handling charge of three-cents per pound or $60.00 per ton, with a minimum of $25.00 for each load effective this month, until the volume and actual costs are determined by experience. City Council has approved the imposition of this charge. The only other material charged for disposal is the splitting and burying of tires, currently 40 cents/tire or $26.00 per ton. Your approval of the imposition of the charge is requested." Mr. Agnor went over his memo to the Board of Supervisors and requested that the Board authorize the imposition of these fees effective this month. Action today could conceivably be put into effect by July 15. Mr. Fisher asked if this charge will cover expenses. Mr. Agnor said it is estimated that it will. Mr. Fisher wanted to know if Mr. Agnor thought that this would have the perverse effect of encouraging some haulers to dump materials on road sides instead of bringing them to the landfill? Mr. Agnor responded that he does not believe so primarily because of the attention that asbestos removal receives in terms of the companies that are specializing in that field. Their requirements are to see that it is properly disposed of as well as removed from the construction site. They would be in jeopardy if they dump on road sides because of their licensing process. Mr. Bowie asked about the small hauler who just happens to have some asbestos? Mr. Agnor responded that staff does not believe that there are people with just small quantities of it. Most of them are afraid of it, and will have someone come and get it. He does not expect homeowners to be trying to figure out how to get rid of it. Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. Mr. Lindstrom. WHEREAS, compliance with State regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste containing asbestos has resulted and will result in increased capital expenditures and operating costs for the sanitary landfill operated by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle near Ivy, Virgin- ia; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that users of the landfill desiring to dispose of asbestos materials should pay a charge to defray added expenses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that all persons depositing materials at the Ivy Landfill containing asbestos shall pay a handling charge of $0.03 per pound or $60.00 per ton of such material with a minimum charge of $25.00 per load; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Charlottesville is requested to concur in the imposition of this charge." 142 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Agenda Item No. 21. At 12:35 P.M., Mr. Fisher announced that the Board would need to adjourn for lunch, and there had been a request for an executive session to discuss acquisition of property and personnel matters. Motion to adjourn into executive session for these purposes was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:00 P.M. with Mrs. Cooke chairing the meet- ing, and with Mr. Fisher and Mr. St. John being absent at this time. Agenda Item No. 18. Gypsy Moth Report. The following memorandum from Mrs. Sandra R. Markwood, Administrative Assistance, dated July 2, 1986, was received: "Attached for your review and consideration is a copy of a report which outlines the current status of the gypsy moth situation in Albemarle County. As the report indicates, there have been five positive sightings of gypsy moth larvae in the County in 1986. This reflects an expansion of gypsy moth larvae activity in the County over 1985 when one gypsy moth egg mass was found in a single tree in Barboursville. The Virginia Department of Forestry estimates that it will be three years before significant outbreaks of gypsy moths occur in the northern portions of Albemarle County and five years before major infestations of the pest are reported throughout the County. Due to the complex and often controversial nature of the gypsy moth control problem, Federal and State agencies encour- age localities to use this lead time to plan and develop their strategies for dealing with the pest before infestation levels of the insect are reached. Included in the attached report is a brief analysis of the life cycle characteristics of the gypsy moth; potential impact of the insect on the County and its property owners; control options available; available funding and technical assistance resources; and, recommended actions for the County to take in order to determine the scope and design of its gypsy moth pro- gram. Highlights of the recommendations follow: Establish a Gypsy Moth Committee responsible for providing technical assistance and developing the County's control program. Initiate a cooperative agreement for gypsy moth suppression efforts with Federal, and State agencies, the City of Charlottesville and other adjacent jurisdictions. Designate a Gypsy Moth Coordinator to serve as the liaison to the Gypsy Moth Committee and other agency and jurisdictional representatives. Establish a gypsy moth public education program. Plan, develop and implement a cooperative gypsy moth control program. Hold public meetings to discuss the gypsy moth situation, proposed actions and costs of those actions." Ms. Sandy Markwood gave a brief overview of the status of the Gypsy Moth in Albemarle County. She said they have had two more sightings reported in Albemarle County since the report was written bringing the total sightings of the Gypsy Moth to seven. Last year at this time only one Gypsy Moth sighting had been reported. She commented that she would be glad to answer general questions and Mr. Mark Reynolds, County Extension Agent, and Mr. Caleb Morris, who is a Gypsy Moth expert and has been with the Department of Forestry, are also available for questions. Mr. Caleb Morris, recently retired from the State Division of Forestry, said he had been associated with the Gypsy Moth for 30 years at the national and local levels and has been a member of several advisory councils. He has worked with the State Department of Agriculture in their efforts to come up with a practical, efficient and useful program to control the Gypsy Moth in the Commonwealth. He made a few comments on Ms. Markwood's recommendations. He said a committee should be established now. That committee would evaluate the situation as it appears to develop in Albemarle County and suggest what measures could be taken. He said there is a wide range of possible measures. That committee could be the guidance for the coordinator who will have to be appointed if the County wishes to apply for cost-sharing funds with the state program. He does not think, at this time, a full-time coordinator is needed. He suggested that the County could employ a part-time expert on the Gypsy Moth such as himself to assist the County in setting up the program and making recommendations and making surveys. He stated that as soon as possible someone should look at some of the County owned lands to see which ones are most vulnerable. A planned and developed cooperative control program could get underway any time now. There should be public meetings this fall because he suggests that the aid of civic groups be enlisted as well as others who might be interested in helping to do surveys. That way they would be better able to deal with them on a case to case basis. In general, he believes the report is worthy of the Board's consideration. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the initial action is to set up a committee which will report back to the Board as to what measures needed to be taken, and Mr. Agnor said that was correct. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 143 Mrs. Cooke said some sort of statement needs to be made as to how the staff intends to proceed with a target date. Mr. Henley suggested that they wait until next month, and Mr. Agnor said they could put it on the August 13 agenda, and before that meeting a timetable and recommendation for the composition of the committee will be sent to Board members. Mr. Agnor commented that this will be Ms. Markwood's last appearance before this Board. He wanted to publicly recognize her two years of service, and he indicated that this may be her final product in the terms of a written report to the Board. Mrs. Cooke stated that she hated to see her go, and she said that Ms. Markwood had done a fine job. Mr. Agnor said Ms. Markwood and her husband would be moving to the northern part of the state for the purposes of his law practice. Agenda Item No. 17. STA-86-1. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments (continued from May 21, 1986). The following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Communi- ty Development, dated July 3, 1986, was received: "On May 21, 1986, the Board of Supervisors reviewed STA-86-01 and requested that the staff change the proposed amendments to reflect comments provided by the Board of Supervisors. The first suggested change was to rewrite Section 18-13(b) to allow the director to take action on an exempt plat submittal sooner than the two days of review provided to the staff. That change has been made on the third page of the proposed amendments. The second suggested change was to rewrite Section 18-37(m) to specify which section of 18-36 is being referred to. Staff has looked at that matter again and feels that there are portions of the entire section 18-36 that may come into play on this matter and, therefore, a specific paragraph under 18-36 should not be referred to. The final suggested change was for the County Attorney to verify that the road requirements for the family divi- sions are in accordance with the state code. Based on further discussions with the County Attorney, it has been determined that there can be no County requirements for roadway construction standards on private roads to serve family divisions. Table I has, therefore, been changed to reflect that opinion. I hope these changes in the previous submittal to the Board of Supervisors have addressed the Board's concerns. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me." Mr. Horne said that instead of going through all of the changes that are proposed and have already been before the Board at a previous meeting, he would just go through the three changes that the Board had pointed out as some things that should be looked at. He discussed the change in Section 18-36(e) and asked Mr. Lindstrom if this addressed his concern as to the way it should be written. Mr. Lindstrom said it did. Mr. Horne went on to discuss the other changes. He said that Section 18-36 is a complex section of the ordinance. He said that this section needs some work, and the staff will be looking at that over the next year to try to reduce it to a more readable form. During discussions dealing with the Highway Department and private entrances, Mr. Henley asked if new entrances would have to be approved. Mr. Horne said that on new entrances, they would have to do whatever is required. That is a separate situation. Mrs. Cooke asked which comes first on a family subdivision, approval by the Highway Department that they will give them an entrance, or do they make the family division first and then get the highway approval. Mr. Horne replied that he will not sign the division plat until there has been verification from the Highway Department that the lot can legally have access to the road where it is shown. That could be either through a new entrance where they will have to have a permit or an existing entrance. Under State Code, staff believes that the Highway Department could impose increased entrance standards, but they have told the County that they will not do that. Mr. 'Horne said they will take them at their word. He said that Table II looks different because there are no construction standards, only the notation for the plat. Mr. Horne said there were a lot of other changes that were gone through item by item at the last meeting. Mr. Bowie inquired about Section 18-13(b) and said he recollected that the problem there was the minimum of time allowed for the-director to provide a review on an exempt plat submittal. He does not think this has been corrected. Mr. Horne said the way this section wass written before he could not sign the plat within two days. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it should say that nothing shall preclude the director from doing it as fast as he can. Mr. Horne said staff's reasoning is that they have people show up at the front desk and say that it must be reviewed now. Mr. Lindstrom said that is not required by the ordinance, and Mr. Horne said they explain that to people. He would like something in the ordinance to say that staff does not have to stand at the front desk and do that. Mr. Lindstrom said this does not preclude staff from doing it within two days, but it gives language that does not obligate that it be done immediately. Mr. Horne said it is clearly not staff's intention to unnecessarily delay people. It is difficult for the staff planner to sit at the front desk and sign off on it while the appli- cant is standing there. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Mr. Bowie. asked why two days of review is more .effective than five. Mr. Horne stated that in those cases where they feel they do not have the ability to review it, this will allow them at least two days. Mr. Keeler said there is an_administrative policy that no plats will be approved unless it is reviewed by two staff members in order to avoid error. They have regularly established meetings twice a week where they go over all plats. They are trying to get_people away from coming in at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. If people are used to doing it, they will continue to do it, and staff could end up making mistakes. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks this is a reasonable request on the part of the staff, and Mr. Bowie agreed. But he said he does not see where this does it because he doesn't see the.difference between the five day period and the two day period. They still can't tell the person they can't do it right now. This does not solve the problem as it is worded. Mr. Horne replied that they can point to this code section that says there is no obligation to do this within two days. Additional time is needed. If they can point to a code section, there is direct authoriza- tion that they don't have to do it right away. Mrs. Cooke asked if it could be worded without a time limit but have review requirements instead, such as this has to be reviewed in staff meetings as opposed to one person doing it at a time. A policy could be established of team review. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Bowie that since there already was a five day limit there was no reason to change it to two days. Mr. Horne said the request of the staff is for all of the subdivision text amendments to be approved as presented. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the ordinance as presented with the change in Section 18-13(b) which is to strike all of the language after the words "within five days of filing." Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE KNOWN AS SUBDIVISION OF LAND BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that certain sections of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code known as Subdivision of Land is hereby amended through the following changes: Article I. In General. Sec. 18-2. Definitions. Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the estab- lishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such that: (a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres in area; or (b) Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than two hundred fifty feet on a road which is part of the state highway system or state secondary highway system. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a subdivision: (a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining land-owners; provided, that: (1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by appropriate symbol and wording on the plat together with signatures of both land- owners pursuant to section 18-55(b) and by the instrument of conveyance thereof; and, (2) No parcel which was five acres or greater in area prior to such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of such sale and/or ex- change, be less than five acres in area; (3) No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, front less than two hundred fifty feet on a road which is part of the state highway system or state secondary highway system; and (4) No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale and/or exchange. (b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent domain by any public agency. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) The foregoing notwithstanding all divisions of land shall be deemed to be subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application of section 18-13(b) of this chapter. Article II. Administration of Chapter. Sec. 18,13. Administration approval of certain subdivision plats. (a) Same. (b) Every division which is not subject to review in accordance with section 18-13(a) or section 18-41 shall be submitted for review by the director of planning to insure compliance with section 18-28 and section 18-55 (b), (c), (h), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s), hereof. The director of planning shall review each such plat within five days of filing. ARTICLE III. Design Standards. Division 4. Lots. Sec. 18-30. Location. Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Except for lots fronting on a cul-de-sac, frontage shall not be less than required by the zoning ordinance. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on public street or private road cul-de-sacs; provided that driveway separation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted street, the subdivider shall dedicate at least half the right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by this chapter. Division 6. Streets. Sec. 18-36. Private roads. (e) kll private roads approved pursuant to this section shall conform to the following: (1) Private roads permitted under sections 18-36(b)(1), 18-36(b)(2) and 18-36(b)(5) shall conform to the requirements of table I. Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(3) shall conform to the requirements of table I except that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall be required and the depth of base, width of travelway, minimum sight distance and surface treatment may be increased in accordance with the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the most traffic-intensive uses to which such land may lawfully be devoted. Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(4) shall conform to the requirements of table II. Note: Table I amended and moved to new location within text. Illustration to accompany note one, table I, retained and moved to new location within text. Table II retained, but moved to new location also. (2) Same. (3) Same. (4) Same. (5) Same. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 36) TABLE I Single-Family Detached (Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial) Number of Lots Width of Depth of Surface Minimum Served by Road Travelway Base Treatment Sight Distance SEE NOTE ONE In addition (¥DH&T (Except as (In accordance to 4 foot aggregate otherwise with VDH&T shoulders base) expressly methodology and ditch provided) for stopping requirements sight distance 2 lots ........... SEE NOTE TWO ................................. Family division ........... SEE NOTE TWO ................................. only (Any number of lots) 3 - 5 lots 14 feet 6" #25 Not required 100 feet or #26 SEE NOTE 3 6 - 10 lots 14 feet 6" #21 Prime & 100 feet Double Seal or Approved Equivalent 11 - 20 lots 18 feet 6" #21 Prime & 120 feet Double Seal or Approved Equivalent NOTE ONE: (Same.) NOTE TWO: The surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existing and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary passenger vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather condi- tions, together with area adequate for maintenance of such travel- way. Such certification may be accomplished by the following wording on the plat: "This private road will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code." This provision includes family divisions. NOTE THREE: When slope of road is seven percent or less. If slope exceeds seven percent, six inches of number 21 or number 2lA and prime and double seal. ILLUSTRATION TO ACCOMPANY NOTE ONE, TABLE I. Insert at this point in text. Same. TABLE II. Same. Insert at this point in text. (f) Same. (g) Same. (h) Same. Sec. 18-37. General standards of design. (m) Access road. No subdivision shall be approved unless the princi- pal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, or, in the case of a private road, to the standards of the county as set forth in section 18-36 of this chapter, throughout its length including any distance between the boundary of the proposed subdivision and existing public road. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Article IV. Platting. Division 3. Final Plats. Sec. 18-55. Contents. Paragraph. Same. (a) Same. (b) A statement that: "The division of the land described herein is with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owner, properties and trustees. Any reference to future potential develop- ment is to be deemed as theoretical only. All statements affixed to this plat are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." (c) The boundary lines of the area being subdivided Shall be deter- mined by an accurate field survey with bearings shown in degrees, minutes and seconds to the nearest ten seconds and dimensions to be shown in feet to the nearest hundredths of a foot to the accuracy of one in five thousand. Total acres in each existing and proposed parcel plus delineation of the Flood Hazard Overlay District of the zoning ordinance shall be shown. Article V. Special Provisions Applicable to Certain Divisions. Sec. 18-57. Exemption of certain divisions; qualifications. (c) No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise, descent or operation of law, to a person other than a member of the immediate family of the transferor, for a period of one year except for purposes of securing any purchase money and/or construction loan, including bona fide refinancing. A statement shall be affixed to the plat that such parcel shall not be trans- ferred for a period of one year from date of recordation except in accor- dance with this section. (d) Any such parcel which is transferred to the owner of any adjacent parcel shall be deemed to become an integral part of such adjacent parcel and shall be so noted on the plat by appropriate symbol and wording. (e) The requirements of sections 18-36(a), 18-36(d)(2), 18-36(d)(3), 18-36(d)(4) and 18-36(e)(1) shall apply to any plat submitted pursuant to section 18-36(b)(5) of this chapter. (f) Same. (g) Same. (h) Any lot created which is less than five acres shall comply with section 18-23 of this chapter. (i) In addition to the foregoing, any such plat shall comply with section 18-13(b) of this chapter. Sec. 18-58. Procedure. Each such division shall be registered by the filing of such division with the director of planning, who shall make a determination as to whether such division is in accord with the provisions of sections 18-13(b) and 18-57 of this chapter. In the event that he shall determine that such division is so in accord he shall issue a certification of exemption which shall be recorded with the plat of such division. No such plat shall be recorded without the attachment of such certificate. In the event that he shall determine that such division is not so in accord, he shall deny such certificate, giving in writing his reasons for such determination. The director of planning shall act either to issue or deny such certificate in accordance with section 18-13(b). The provisions of section 18-43(b) shall apply to any such division. Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Mr. Lindstrom moved to appoint Mr. Burton M. Webb as a member of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation Board with a term to expire on June 26, 1987. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Pa_ge 38) Mrs. Cooke mentioned the vacancies on the Advisory Council on Aging, the BOCA Code Board of Appeals, Community Service Board, Drunk Driving Steering Committee and the Emergency Medical Services Council. Mrs. Cooke would like to be replaced on the Drunk Driving Steering Committee. She stated that she and Mr. Fisher would decide what to do about the appoint- ments. Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Bowie said that he has had two or three problems in his district, and there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to take care of them. First was the tire situation, and if the tires had not been a fire hazard, he does not think the problem could have been correct- ed. Secondly, there is a problem being handled through the court involving junk automobiles. He would like for the staff to think about this. He said the new Zoning Administrator said he had some ideas on some rather simple things that would allow him to do something about properties being turned into a dump or something unsightly. Mr. Bowie is asking what can be done, and would like for the staff to inform the Board within the next couple of months. He wants to know if anything can be done without going through a long court process just trying to keep the neighborhood nice. Mr. Henley asked what the tire situation was, and Mr. Bowie said there were tires piled up at Cismont, and there was some doubt under the Zoning Ordinance whether or not the man had a right to keep the tires there. Mr. Henley stated that farmers who make big bales of hay use truck and car tires to stack them on. Mr. Henley said he has a lot of them. Mr. Bowie said he is talking about something that is a public nuisances. Mr. Agnor said he had notification from the Virginia Association of Counties that they are starting to accumulate recommendations for amendments to the State Code with those requests being made by September 1. The August agenda will have items of concern that need to get into the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Program. Mr. Agnor noted that he had received the following letter from Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District: "This letter is written in response to the May 7, 1986, resolution concern- ing the need for sanitary disposal of sewage for residences near the Woolen Mills and East Market Street. Examination and observation by health department staff disclose that the Woolen Mills, occupied by the Allied Van Company, and five dwellings do not have safe, sanitary sewage disposal systems. Under regulations of the Board of Health, occupancy of such premises is prohibited. No authority, however, is provided the health department to require the owners or occupants to connect to a sewer system. Such authority is granted the local government (Sections 15.1-1261 and 1262) by rules and regulations or resolution. We will be pleased to work with the Board and the Service Authority to resolve and correct the problem." Mr. Agnor stated that the Board had adopted a resolution and sent it to the Health Department requesting that they participate in solving a sanitary sewage problem near the Woolen Mills East Market Street area. Dr. Prindle has responded to that resolution indicat- ing that there is one warehouse building and five dwellings involved and pointing out that the State Code requires that any mandated connections to a system must be dealt with by the local governing body. He said the Service Authority staff is contacting property owners involved in this project and are trying to determine their ability and willingness to connect to the sewer line that is being proposed to being installed. If there is a problem, there will be a report back to the Board. The last item that Mr. Agnor talked about was an update of the monitoring of the wells and underground water systems in the vicinity of the Greenwood Chemical Plant. He had indicated earlier that there would be another testing of the water wells in that area, and they have received information that it will be done this month. This will involve testing of the wells that were tested earlier when the explosion first occurred, and will also involve the sinking of several more monitoring wells from the studies that have been made in terms of locating some additional areas that need to be watched and monitored. Mr. St. John mentioned the item from earlier today concerning the appeal of Mr. Edgerton on the Milkey Tract Plat. He said he would not ask the Board to have any special meeting about the appeal for a family division. He is satisfied, in his own mind, that if there is any appeal to result, it can't be lawfully changed. If the Board should elect to put the appeal down for a hearing and notifies the applicant, that can be done just as well at a regular meeting as a special meeting. It will not change the outcome. After the appeal is heard and paperwork is reviewed, it is going to be a case where, under the law as written, the staff had no choice but to approve this subdivision and any violation of the Zoning Ordinance is new business. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Gouldman if the discussion this morning re- solved the problem~in their minds. July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) Mr. St. John said that it did not. They say the Zoning Ordinance is not satisfied because the slopes and buildable space don't fit the requirements. The key here is that there is in Mr. Agn6r's file, which came out of the Planning and Zoning Office, a certificate by a licensed engineer with 15 or 20 years experience and a reasonably good reputation that says just the opposite. It says the slopes and the buildable area fit the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. St. John thinks it is too late to say that this can't be accepted, .and because someone says this is not true, an investigation will be launched and the people ~ill be summoned before the Board. He does not think the Board has the grounds to do this because the surveyor's certificate is in the file. In no other case does he remember that this was not accepted, where an adjacent landowner takes the position that this certificate is in the file, but it is not correct. And if something is not done to stop the bulldozers right away, the bulldozer will correct the topographic deficiency so that the certificate will be correct by this time next week. That is the position that the complaintants are taking. That~would mean that the Board would have to lunge into this adverse action against these people to show that a certificate that they filed is wrong. He is not going to advise the Board to do that. Mr. Henley asked if there was someone in the Engineering Department who could look at it and confirm whether this is reasonably correct, if they measure it off and check the slopes? Mr. Agnor said that when the plat was appealed to the Board and the Planning Commis- sion's actions were:approved several years ago, a condition was added that said you approved a subdivision but it was going to be contingent, beforebeing signed, upon examination by the Engineering Office that the lot has a building site. After that action, the engineers for the applicant at that time, provided a topographic map and everything else that was needed. The County Engineering staff took it to the field and sent a copy of the memo that said according to their examination it is a buildable lot and there are sufficient sites for a building and two septic tanks. It was one lot at that time. They did not look at it from a two lot point of view or having more than two building sites on it. Mr. Lindstrom said the question is whether there is a building site and two septic field locations on both of the lots that have now been created. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Edgerton is saying that on the first appeal that the property was not buildable for a single site. Now he is saying that on the second appeal, it is not buildable for two sites. Mr. St. John said that Mr. Edgerton is saying that it is not buildable on either of the two sites, which means that Mr. Bailey's certificate was wrong and that the present sur- veyor'S certificate is wrong. Mr. Agnor explained that Mr. Bailey was the former County Engineer. Mr. St. John said that Mr. Ashley Williams actually signed the certificate, but Mr. Agnor commented that Mr. Bailey signed the memorandum because he oversaw the field work on it. Mr. Agnor said he saw some of the papers that had notations on them, and he recog- nized his handwriting. ~ Mrs. Cooke said she sympathizes with the man and his problem, but in light of what's on file, she doesn't know what to say. Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Edgerton said to him today and on a previous occasion that the lot was approved as a single six-acre lot because it was not buildable as two, three-acre lots. The files do not support that. There was no field survey made to determine whether it was buildable at the time it was being subdivided. The field survey and the mapping of it occurred after the Board, in January, 1981, said that this lot could either be joined to an adjacent lot, or it had to be determined to be buildable. Mr. Edgerton said that it was put into a single lot and noted on the plat. that there would be no further subdivision by the Planning Commission because it had been determined that it could not hold two buildabte lots. That is not what the file says. The file says that he contended that it could not be built upon even as a single lot. The subdivider at that time, not having topographic information to be able to certify that it was buildable, agreed to leave it as a single lot and agreed that it would be adjoined to an adjacent lot if it was found that it was not buildable. The Board did not accept that, and said it would approve it as a subdivison and make a deter- mination if it was buildable. Mr. Lindstrom Commented that he would support having the County Engineer go out and take a look at these two parcels as soon as he can do it before the bulldozers have recontoured the land to see what is really going on out there. All the Board has is conflicting informa- tion. It is an unusual circumstance because the County did tell the gentleman that it would let him know before it happened, and it didn't get done that way. He understands why, but he would be interested in seeing what the County Engineer can tell now. It may be that by the end of the day there may be enough work that's been done out there that it may already be different. Mr. Agnor said there is no more grading going on out there. He stated that the man just cleared off some brush. Mr. Edgerton is saying that he can change the contours if he chooses to do so, and Mr. Agnor is saying that he can't do that until he gives the County the plan for it, which he has not done. There's no danger in it happening very quickly. Mr. Henley said that he, too, would like for the County Engineer to take a look at it and get a memo to the Board as to what he finds. Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Henley meant whether the two lots are buildable, and Mr. Henley answered, "yes." Mrs. Cooke wanted information as to what activity has taken place on the site. Mr. St. John said the Board has to be careful that the Engineer does not get into a confrontation, because he has no right to be there. If the owner tells him to get off the property, then he has to-get off. Mr. Lindstrom said the Engineer Can then report to the Board that the owner would not let him go onto the property. 150 July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) Mr. Henley said he really did feel that the Engineer.should look at the property since it is such a mixed up situation. He asked Mr. St. John if ~he has to have permission to go on the property. Mr. St. John stated that there is no application pending anymore, so he has no right to be there. Mr. Henley asked Mr. St. John if the Engineer has a right to be there ce the Board has had complaints by an adjoining landowner. Mr. Agnor replied to Mr. Henley's question by saying that it may be that he may not even have to go on the site. Everything is in the file. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the~Engineer should go out there. Mr. St. John said that in a normal situation, the Engineer would be showing the Health Department people, where to go to make these tests. But if there has been this adversity and complaints, the landowner is not going to be in a good frame of mind. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to request the County Engineer to contact the property owner to see what work has been done and to determine whether two building sites and four septic field sites can be put on the property and that the Board not take any action on this appeal until after the property owner or his agent and the adjoining property owners have been notified. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 22. adjourned at 2:57 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was